Newton’s Case Study

Do you consider Newton, a problem employee or would you consider this a problem situation?

Newton is not a problem employee. This is a problem situation which arises as a result of individual behavior and the diverse reactions of other employees. Given that the law permits him to behave in that manner under the Fourteenth Amendment and the City Police Department does not have a policy that prohibits employees from having tattoos, Newton is acting innocently and under the direction of the law. However, his actions are resulting in a problem situation, where other employees are getting concerned about such individual actions that may be offensive to other staff in the department and even to the client served.

Buy this excellently written paper or order a fresh one from acemyhomework.com

The problem situation does not necessarily arise from Newton behavior it is rather triggered by his behavior. The problem arises from the failure of the police department to develop policies that guide officers in certain areas of life that may be considered private but have an effect on the workplace environment. The police department ought to have a policy that provides guidance on the application of body arts and tattoos. According to Bohlander and Snell (2010), a policy on tattoos ought to base on the organization culture and the image the organization would want to present to its clients. In the policy, examples of offensive body arts that should not be made visible to other staff or clients. Another way of handling such ethical issues is encouraging staff to seek for guidance when they are not sure about the appropriateness of a particular tattoo or body art. Failure to have such policies in place reveals a problem situation when only needed to be triggered. Therefore, it is important that it be handled as a problem situation which may also apply in another area; hence the need for the police department to develop policies that guides officers. What type of disciplinary actions, if any would take against Newton?

The options for disciplinary action against Newton are limited. The only disciplinary action that may be taken is to require Newton to cover all offensive tattoos on his body both with other officers and when interacting with the public. Newton can still retain the tattoos, but since some tattoos are generally offensive such as that of naked women and swastika tattoo that is associated with hatred, the department will ask him to cover it even during summer. It is a common practice among many organizations to restrict the display of tattoos among their employees who constantly interact with customers. This disciplinary action is justified since it does not hinder Newton from having such tattoos. However, it requires him to respect the work environment and the reputation of the police department. Police officers are public servants who have the responsibility to serve the public without discrimination. Displaying tattoos that are affiliated with hatred or discrimination against a certain group of people may interfere with the department’s service delivery.

What potential issues or ramifications should you be aware of when considering disciplinary actions?

One of the key issues to consider is the State and Federal laws on nondiscrimination on employees who may apply tattoos as a way of expressing their religious beliefs. The implication of this is that employees have the right to apply certain body arts being protected by the law from the interference from the employer. The kind of discipline meted to Newton should be within the boundaries of the law, protecting him from discrimination and workplace harassment. Secondly, the employee may raise objections to any form of disciplinary action taken against him. As Newton stated, tattoos may be a way for self-expression.

Furthermore, the organization lacks policies that restrict or guide the application of tattoos. In case of objection, the Department may not fire him because that would against the law. The inability to take disciplinary action may lead to other undesirable officer’s behavior, which is not explained in the policy. The employee has a legal right to sue the organization for discrimination. The reputation of the organization may also be ruined, being regarded as a hostile work environment for employees with tattoos. When there is no direction concerning ethical issues, it may not be justified to punish an employee for what may be considered right on their part. Ethics distinguishes between right and wrong, good and bad, moral and immoral issues. Ethics is subjective, depending on peoples' culture, beliefs, and values. Taking disciplinary action when the organization fails to deliberately guide officers on what it considers ethical may ruin its reputation. Lastly, the ability of the department to attract highly qualified employees with diverse practices may also be limited. Attracting very talented employees requires the organization to be accommodative to employees with different backgrounds (Allred, 2016). Both men and women have tattoos that do not explain anything unique about the personality of the person having it. Taking a disciplinary action basing on the fact that the employee has a tattoo may limit the chances of the department from hiring very talented employees who have tattoos. This may prevent the department from attracting the talented employees who have tattoos.