# Wood County deputy fired over tattoo (USMC, Praying Hands, dogtags)



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 29, 2010)

http://www.newsandsentinel.com/page/content.detail/id/529293.html?nav=5061



> The termination was over Piggott's refusal to remove a tattoo on his right forearm depicting two praying hands cupping a Marine Corps ID tag, an image memorializing his five years of service in the armed forces and his two tours of service in Iraq.
> Above the hands is the phrase "Unless you were there," etched in ink.
> In 2008, the sheriff's office implemented a new policy restricting visible tattoos. The policy states, "Tattoos are not to be visible while wearing the summer uniform."


----------



## chaos1551 (Apr 29, 2010)

Well, ain't that a stinker.

It would be hard for me to enforce a policy over something symbolic of military service.  Still, I understand it.  Tatoos still have a stigma attached to them.  Though I don't have a problem with them, they do have an "unprofessional" air about them in my opinion.  I imagine some old timers may still find them offensive.

Why couldn't the officer wear a non-summer uniform and keep his job?  Policy?


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 29, 2010)

It sounds like the content of the tattoo, which the thread title and article reference, isn't really relevant.  It was visible and violated the policy.  If this man was allowed to keep his tattoo, then you enter a weird wonderland of deciding which tattoos are "good" and which are "bad" for police to have.

However, I do think such policies in general are misguided.  Tattoos don't make you a bad person, although the stigma does persist.  Damn near every WWII veteran I've ever met, including my grandfather and great uncle, had service related tattoos.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 29, 2010)

I do not like this. I understand the reasons, but I do not like this.


----------



## sfs982000 (Apr 29, 2010)

I could understand if the tattoo was offensive, but it's not and again the question comes up if he keeps it covered up what's the difference, it doesn't affect how he performs his job.  The military or at least the Air Force has taken the same stance regarding tattoos, which I think is some high level brass with wayyy too much time on their hands.


----------



## CoryKS (Apr 29, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> It sounds like the content of the tattoo, which the thread title and article reference, isn't really relevant. It was visible and violated the policy. If this man was allowed to keep his tattoo, then you enter a weird wonderland of deciding which tattoos are "good" and which are "bad" for police to have.
> 
> However, I do think such policies in general are misguided. Tattoos don't make you a bad person, although the stigma does persist. Damn near every WWII veteran I've ever met, including my grandfather and great uncle, had service related tattoos.


 
The only thing I would add to this is that if you are going to implement a new policy regarding something indelible and deeply personal like tattoos, there should be a grandfather clause for those who already have them.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 29, 2010)

Most departments with tattoo policies like that allow the officer to wear long sleeves to conceal the tats. This policy is too restrictive IMO.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 29, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> It sounds like the content of the tattoo, which the thread title and article reference, isn't really relevant.  It was visible and violated the policy.  If this man was allowed to keep his tattoo, then you enter a weird wonderland of deciding which tattoos are "good" and which are "bad" for police to have.
> 
> However, I do think such policies in general are misguided.  Tattoos don't make you a bad person, although the stigma does persist.  Damn near every WWII veteran I've ever met, including my grandfather and great uncle, had service related tattoos.


Actually, there's a few simple things that could be done.  Most agencies in my area authorize short sleeves when appropriate to the weather, but the "official" uniform is really the long sleeve shirt.  (In fact, until a couple of years ago, my agency mandated the long sleeve shirt except for a specific period.  90 degree day a few weeks early, or a long Indian summer... SOL, sweat.  Lots.)  So, the deputies with visible tats in short sleeves are stuck wearing long sleeves.  Or, deputies with tats below the sleeve line must wear a tattoo cover-up sleeve.  Or you grandfather people who have them on the day of the new policy, and prohibit new tattoos in violation.


----------



## Tames D (Apr 29, 2010)

A tat jacket sleeve. How silly is that. No one will ever know what is under the sleeve :rofl:. Kinda like my Glock fanny pak, nobody suspects there is a gun in there 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.


----------



## David43515 (Apr 29, 2010)

Either way, if they can`t fire a deputy w/o a disciplinary hearing and he didn`t get one. He deserves to have due process. The article says his union is behind him on this. The article also mentions that he didn`t comment on whether or not he had priviously signed paperwork promising to have the tattoo removed by a certain date. If that was part of the understanding that got him through his one-year probationary period then his department may have a good argument.

But unless they require the summer uniform to be worn, it sounds like he wasn`t violating the policy. He kept it covered during duty hours either with long sleeves or an elastic bandage.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 30, 2010)

David43515 said:


> Either way, if they can`t fire a deputy w/o a disciplinary hearing and he didn`t get one. He deserves to have due process. The article says his union is behind him on this. The article also mentions that he didn`t comment on whether or not he had priviously signed paperwork promising to have the tattoo removed by a certain date. If that was part of the understanding that got him through his one-year probationary period then his department may have a good argument.
> 
> But unless they require the summer uniform to be worn, it sounds like he wasn`t violating the policy. He kept it covered during duty hours either with long sleeves or an elastic bandage.


Actually, they may well be able to.  Deputies in Virginia, for example, serve at the pleasure of the Sheriff.  Virginia's a right-to-work state, and so long as they aren't firing you for the small list of prohibited things (gender, creed, etc.) -- you can be terminated.

And, in this case, it appears he was hired AFTER the rule was in place.  He was fired after being disciplined for failing to comply with the appearance standards and with an order.  It also may depend on how the GO was written; there's a difference between "tattoos may not be visible during working hours" and "a deputy may not have a tattoo that would be visible when wearing the short sleeve shirt."


----------

