Ohio Firefighter Settles Discrimination Suit Over Tattoo
A female firefighter who claimed she was being discriminated against by being ordered to cover her tattoos has reached a settlement with her department.
Firefighter Linda Goetz sued the city of Forest Park claiming that she was being unlawfully singled out to cover her tattoos while male employees and even an African American female employee were not.
The tattoos in question were a dragonfly tattoo on the left side of her neck, a dandelion tattoo on the right side of her neck, a cross on the inner side of her left bicep, lightning bolt on the upper inner portion of her right forearm and Indian feathers on her right foot.
Goetz alleged that in 2010 she was ordered to wear turtlenecks to cover her neck tattoos, and on one occasion had to be hospitalized for heat exhaustion in 100-degree heat [Note: I’ll bet that allegation plays better to civilians than it does to firefighters…].
When she refused to cover her tattoos, she was disciplined, prompting her suit in Federal court.
US District Court Judge Michael R. Barrett recently issued a split decision on the City’s motion for summary judgment, ruling in favor of the fire department on allegations of direct sex or race discrimination, but finding there to be a triable question of fact as to whether the disciplining of Goetz was merely a pretext for sex or race discrimination.
Judge Barrett concluded that under the pretext theory, it should be up to a jury to decide if other employees should have been disciplined for their tattoos and if so, whether the basis for not disciplining them was their sex or race.
Here is a copy of the ruling, which undoubtedly played a role in the parties reaching a settlement. Goetz v City of Forest Park MSJ
The settlement makes those issues moot. The terms of the settlement have not been released.
Here is a copy of the original complaint. Goetz v City of Forest Park
October 25, 2012: followup story about the former Forest Park fire chief who was involved with the Goetz case: http://www.journal-news.com/news/news/administrator-unaware-of-lawsuit-involving-interim/nSn2L/
Curt, what is your opinion on policy that requires tattoos to be covered and addresses tattoos that describes or refers to intolerance of, or discrimination against any race, color, preference, creed, religion, gender, national origin, or; it is commonly associated with any organization or groups which advocate such intolerance or discrimination; or it brings discredit upon the agency or violates standards of decency or morality.
Ken
This is a difficult area that needs to be approached strategically. There are inherent 1st Amendment issues with restricting tattoos – but that is only the beginning. It can quickly turn into racial discrimination, gender discrimination, religious discrimination, etc.
The safest bet is to have a blanket policy requiring all tattoos and body art to be covered. PERIOD. That way the department is not tied up trying to say this tattoo is OK, but that one is not.
Not all FDs want to go in that direction and at that point the problem becomes more difficult. Policies like you describe that prohibit certain types of tattoos have been upheld – but they tend to invite problems. I’d rather avoid problems. At the end of the day such a policy will probably be upheld in most cases.