Lawyer ruled out dismissal for having tattoos

An employer does not have the right to dismiss an employee just because of a tattoo, but it can set requirements for appearance through internal company documents. Lawyer Alexander Khaminsky informed Izvestia about this on April 9.

"Refusal of employment or dismissal should be based solely on a person's ability to perform their work duties," the specialist noted.

According to the expert, tattoos have long become commonplace in the working environment in Russia, but employers can introduce dress code rules if they are fixed in local regulations, such as internal labor regulations or the corporate code.

At the same time, restrictions must be justified, such as requirements for the company's image, specifics of customer interaction, or occupational safety issues.

In the Alpha system: teenagers have submitted almost a million resumes for job search

Are there any restrictions on hiring and which areas attract minors

"Of course, a tattoo on the face of a customer relations manager will violate corporate requirements. However, if tattoos are hidden by clothing or do not affect the performance of a work function, then they cannot be banned," the lawyer said.

The expert explained that it is not the fact of having a tattoo that matters, but its impact on the performance of work duties. In particular, open tattoos on employees working with clients may contradict corporate requirements. At the same time, the employer has no right to prohibit tattoos that are hidden by clothing and do not affect work.

Separately, Khaminsky stressed that similar principles apply to civil servants. The law does not explicitly prohibit tattoos, but individual codes of ethics may recommend hiding them during service.

Outline the situation: how to dissuade a teenager from getting a tattoo

Hormonal fluctuations can push children to do something rash, which they will regret later.

Ilya Vasilchuk, a trial lawyer, said on April 2 that stealing food from a shared refrigerator at work could result in administrative or criminal liability, depending on the value of the stolen item. It was clarified that such actions are qualified as theft — the illegal seizure of someone else's property causing damage to the owner.

All important news is on the Izvestia channel in the MAX messenger.