Tattoos have become a widely recognized form of personal expression, but for some, they present significant challenges in professional settings. Ash Putnam, a 23-year-old social media influencer, learned this the hard way when her visible face tattoos appeared to impact her job prospects. After applying for a retail position, she received an automated rejection. When she followed up, she was told the decision was due to her lack of experience. However, Putnam couldn’t shake the feeling that her tattoos were influencing the outcome.
This situation highlights the ongoing struggle to reconcile individuality with professional standards. While society has grown more accepting of tattoos, visible body art remains stigmatized in many workplaces. Putnam’s experience draws attention to the broader issue of appearance-based discrimination in hiring practices.
For Putnam, her tattoos are not just cosmetic; they represent a core part of her identity. Her facial tattoos, paired with a septum piercing, are defining elements of her unique style. However, these same features that make her stand out in life are often viewed as a drawback in job applications. Frustrated by her experiences, she has shared her perspective through TikTok videos, which have gone viral with over 9.7 million views. In these videos, she questions why tattoos should impact someone’s employability when they have no bearing on job performance.
Her story resonated with many, prompting others to share their experiences with discrimination due to tattoos or piercings. Commenters included former retail employees and hiring managers from chains like TJ Maxx, who acknowledged that visible tattoos and piercings often factor into hiring decisions. One individual even confirmed that such features could be the reason candidates are overlooked for customer-facing roles.
At the same time, there are those who defend employers’ rights to maintain specific standards, especially for roles involving direct customer interaction. Some argue that tattoos and body modifications may not align with the professional image a company wishes to present. However, this perspective risks excluding highly qualified candidates based solely on superficial traits.
Putnam’s case embodies the friction between personal freedom and corporate expectations. While tattoos often hold deep personal meaning for those who choose them, they are sometimes viewed by employers as a detriment in professional settings. This dichotomy highlights how corporate policies may lag behind evolving societal attitudes toward body art.
Putnam has been vocal about her belief that tattoos do not diminish her abilities as an employee. “Just because I have tattoos doesn’t mean I’m not going to be a good worker,” she stated in a social media post. Her words have struck a chord with others who feel similarly judged or passed over due to their appearance.
The conversation sparked by her story extends beyond tattoos, raising broader questions about workplace inclusivity and what should define professionalism. Advocates for change argue that individuality and self-expression should not be barriers to employment. Instead, job performance should be measured by skills, dedication, and experience—qualities unrelated to physical appearance.
As Putnam’s experience garners more attention, it underscores the need for workplace policies to evolve in step with modern values. Tattoos, once regarded as unprofessional or rebellious, have become an increasingly mainstream form of expression. For individuals like Putnam, tattoos carry profound personal significance, challenging outdated views that visible body art impairs job performance.
This issue remains complex, as societal attitudes continue to shift. For the corporate world, particularly in industries with customer-facing roles, adapting to these changes may be essential to fostering fair and inclusive hiring practices. While the debate over tattoos in the workplace persists, it serves as a broader reflection of how society balances tradition and progress in defining professionalism.