Last week, a blogger at RecruitingBlogs.com shared an interesting question asked of her: Is rejecting someone because of his or her tattoos a form of discrimination, or just in keeping with the idea of "professional appearance"? In this specific case, the candidate in question was very well-qualified for the position. But the hiring manager, after seeing Facebook pictures of "his near full-body tattoo" (Facebook strikes again!), the candidate was rejected. On the one hand, the author of the post points out that "Employers have the right to implement grooming and dress policies to protect legitimate business interests." Every employee contributes to the image of a business, and perhaps a body full of ink doesn't reflect the desired message. On the other hand, one of the commenters on the post questions whether tattoos have anything to do with ability. Of course, they don't interfere with one's work any more than would a particular hair color. No one at the CATS Software office has facial piercings or visible tattoos, but I can't imagine it being a big deal if one of us did. Is it old-fashioned to care about body modification now that it's so pervasive in our country? I've seen my fair share of facial piercings at "traditional" places like banks, so does this mean it's not a big deal anymore?