Professional Police Organization Case Study

American law enforcement organizations is hierarchal and it is a bureaucratic structure adopting ways of the military. The quasi-military structure found in police departments will emphasize the importance of specializations in task, duties, objectives, and responsibilities. Each level in the chain of command has specific authority and tasks to carry out. Historically speaking, Peel’s principles of a professional police organization can be seen in today’s philosophy of community-oriented policing (COP). Peel’s principles emphasized the following guidelines for a professional police organization: (1) a police mission statement and core values; (2) crime prevention; (3) respect or citizenry; (4) respect for the law; (5) minimizing the use of
force in order to improve public cooperation; (6) use of physical force as a last resort; and lastly is the principle that reflects this case study regarding Officer Newton’s display of tattoos, (7) even temperament and well-groomed appearance (Champion, 2001, p. 72).
Officer Newton is a patrolman and as we have previously stated, uniformed police officers are the most identifiable to the general public, and they are also perceived in many different ways by the community. Officer Newton has an option of filing a lawsuit against his department for violating his constitutional rights, and allegations of workplace discrimination under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964-Equal Employment (Hazen & Syrdahl, 2010). To be protected under Title VII regarding workplace discrimination, a plaintiff’s case must be thoroughly evaluated and whether the employer’s “policy is discriminatory on its face or whether it has a discriminatory effect” (Hazen & Syrdahl, 2010, p. 1). The courts will also order complainants who seeks to file workplace discrimination under Title VII to provide several reasons why he or she believes the employer’s policy presents discriminatory practices such as the following: (1) were there indications of disparate treatment in the policy; (2) biased environment; and (3) proof that religious or racial differences were not tolerated (Hazen & Syrdahl, 2010).
The following court decisions have set guidelines for body art in the workplace.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought suit against Red Robin Gourmet Burgers in August of 2005. The EEOC stated Red Robin had refused to offer their employee, Edward Rangel, a server at the restaurant, with any accommodations to freely express his Egyptian faith by exposing tattoos of ‘Ra’ the Egyptian sun god (Garnett, 2010). However, studies from Hazen and Syrdahl (2010) indicate that “all tattoos are not created equal in the eyes of the courts” (p. 2). Secular tattoos may be accommodated under Title VII; however, if an employee’s tattoo is considered offensive or construes sexual harassment or racist symbols, then the employer has every right to require the worker to conceal his or her tattoos. An illustration of “all tattoos are not created equal in the eyes of the courts”, could be found in the case of Swartzentruber v. Gunite Corporation. Gunite is a manufacturing company that produces truck wheels, brake drums, and rotors. Mr. Swartzentruber is an employee at Gunite Corp. and publicly displays a tattoo of a hooded figure standing in front of a burning cross on his forearm. By exposing this particular tattoo at his place of employment, Mr. Swartzentruber had offended all of his black co-workers. All of the black employees at Gunite Corp stated they felt harassed and find the image of a burning cross on Swartzentruber’s arm very offensive. Swartzentruber’s supervisors
ordered him to cover up his tattoos because it has created a hostile work environment. Swartzentruber took this matter to district court and did not win his case (Thompson, 2015).
Officer Newton’s incident is similar in many ways to the Swartzentruber v. Gunite Corporation decision. Officer Newton had obviously offended several of his co-workers by publicly displaying his tattoos. Due to the nature of the circumstance, the chief has every right to prevent any hostile work environment in his division; furthermore, to prevent low morale and officer safety issues. According to Peak (2012):
There are several legal and psychological issues surrounding police uniforms, dress codes, and body art; however, criminal justice administrators are given some control over their employees’ appearance-and may find guidance in that arena-in a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Kelly v. Johnson (p. 49). Police departments are quasi-military organizations and directives are set for officers to follow when they are on duty. An officer’s appearance and professionalism will create an impact on how the general public perceive him or her.
The two court decisions that we had briefly reviewed had its differences regarding the nature of the tattoos. Not all tattoos will signify or connote harassing and discriminatory messages. Cases of workplace discriminations are investigated on a case by case basis and, “all tattoos are not created equal in the eyes of the courts” (Hazen & Syrdahl, 2010).
Houston police officers are guided by the general orders and core values.
In the Houston Police Department, no officer will have tattoos or body art that cannot be covered by the official uniform and or plain clothes attire. If you have tattoos or body art that cannot be covered by the official HPD uniform and you are not willing to have them removed, you will not be considered for employment (Houston Police Department General Orders, 2012). A recommendation that police administrators could utilize in preventing officers like Officer Newton, is to heavily emphasize the restrictions of tattoos and body art during the preliminaries of the recruiting phase. Police administrators need to educate their subordinates on the meaning of police professionalism, and also demand professionalism from individuals whom they employ. HPD’s directives regarding body art and tattoos were previously mentioned, and by addressing this issue to interested police candidates in the early phases of their recruitment would be crucial. Supervisors have a responsibility to address their subordinates about tattoos if they observe any of their officers exposing them (derogatory or not). Peak (2012) states, “Professionalism will make police officers readily recognizable to the members of public or a desire to maintain the esprit de corps ‘morale’ of the organization” (p. 49). Professionalism in a quasi-military police organization is geared towards uniformity and slight alterations such as exposing body
art on an officer’s neck, face or forearms will change how citizens perceive the individual officer.
Conclusion
Studies from Burchill (2012) revealed that “Tattoos date back thousands of years and reflect an affinity for humans to mark their bodies to reflect their social, cultural and individual identities” (p. 3). The aforementioned statement by Burchill reflects our current society and how this age of technological revolution had influenced the way we think and express ourselves. Police departments all across the United States are receiving new generations of police officers, and these new breeds of officers are highly educated with various advanced degrees. These young officers also has a variety of attitudes and perception of life. In most police departments, there are at least three generations of police officers (baby boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y). We are seeing more generation Y officers entering into the police academy, and most of these cadets are very expressive due to technological advances, social media, and unique ways of personal expression. Tattoos were once associated with prison subculture and gang affiliations; however, it has now become mainstream in our younger generation of men and women. Generation Y officers believe that tattoos and body art are part of their identities, and it is no surprise to see a wave of them sporting a tattoo.