Dress codes and appearance policies: challenges under federal legislation, part 3: Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the National Labor Relations Act.

As more and more individuals express themselves with tattoos and body piercings and push the envelope on what is deemed appropriate in the workplace, employers have an increased need for creation and enforcement of reasonable dress codes and appearance policies. As with any employment policy or practice, an appearance policy must be implemented and enforced without regard to an individual's race, color, sex, national origin, religion, disability, age, or any other protected status. A policy governing dress and appearance based on the business needs of an employer that is applied fairly and consistently and does not have a disproportionate effect on any protected class will generally be upheld if challenged in court. By examining some of the more common legal challenges to dress codes and how courts have resolved the disputes, health care managers can avoid many potential problems. This article, the third part of a 3-part examination of dress codes and appearance policies, focuses on the issues of race and national origin under the Civil Rights Act, disability under the Americans With Disabilities Act, and employees' rights to engage in concerted activities under the National Labor Relations Act. Pertinent court cases that provide guidance for employers are addressed.

Pseudomonas aeruginosa necrotizing chondritis complicating high helical ear piercing case report: clinical and public health perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Auricular or high helical ear piercing is an increasingly widespread fashion trend that is associated with an increased risk of potentially serious post-piercing complications such as auricular perichondritis. CASE REPORT: An 11-year-old girl developed severe auricular perichondritis following piercing of the upper helical cartilage of her ear at a hairdressing salon. Four days post piercing, she returned to the same salon for a haircut during which the pierced site was manipulated. She presented to her family physician and was treated unsuccessfully with oral cephalexin. She was then referred to an infectious diseases consultant and received antipseudomonal intravenous antibiotics with subsequent resolution. She also required debridement and removal of necrotic cartilage. Public health investigation evaluated potential sources of infection including the piercing gun, disinfectant solutions, and hair cutting spray water bottles. Final culture results of the ear helical aspirate grew Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was also cultured from one of the water bottles used to wet her hair during the haircut. DISCUSSION: Although the pseudomonal strains from the water bottle were different than the infecting one, this contamination presents a potential source of wound infection. Damage to the helical cartilage caused by the piercing gun may also have contributed to this infection. Initial empiric antibiotic therapy for these kinds of infection must include anti-pseudomonal coverage. Auricular or high helical ear piercing using a piercing gun is not recommended.

Tattooing, body piercing, and permanent cosmetics: a historical and current view of state regulations, with continuing concerns.

The popularity of tattooing, body piercing, and permanent cosmetics demands up-to-date state legislation. The objective of this article is to present a historical perspective and nationwide review of current state regulations for body art. Methods comprised Internet and telephone inquiries to state agencies. It was found that while 36 states have changed their body art legislation since 1998, the overall strength of the regulations varies widely. The author concludes that it is unrealistic, given the amount of body art performed in the United States, to prohibit body art, emphasize only business licensing, or have limited state regulations while local municipalities establish separate policies. Concerns remain about standard precautions, adequate documentation of complications, and lack of uniform regulations. Quality protection will mean taking a more comprehensive approach to effective regulations and enforcement.