Despite a more relaxed general public attitude toward tattoos, most employers still lean toward conformity over individuality where freedom of skin expression is concerned, especially in conservative corporate environments and businesses that serve a broad cross-section of the general public.

"Tattoos have not been the subject of employment litigation as frequently as hair or body piercings, because they're either less visible or more easily covered up, not because employers are necessarily more accommodating of them," said Mike Iwan, an employment-law partner at the Minneapolis-based Dorsey & Whitney law firm. Policies requiring employees in retail or similar customer-intense positions to cover up tattoos are not unusual, he said, while for back-office or professional work environments, policies often require an "appropriate" or "professional" appearance but do not specifically address tattoos.

"Private employers have the right to manage the images their employees present," Iwan said. While in some circumstances it may be acceptable to display tattoos in the workplace, "it would be naive to think that having a face or neck tattoo that cannot be covered up would not start to impede career advancement in most organizations."

So far, courts in the United States and elsewhere have tended to favor the employer's discretion on matters of employee appearance, with few exceptions. But a judge in Montreal recently ruled that a day-care worker with a dragon on her shoulder blade shouldn't be barred from working with infants and toddlers. In 2005, the Denver-based restaurant chain Red Robin settled a lawsuit for $150,000 after a worker claimed wrongful termination for wrist tattoos that he said were religion-affiliated.

Because of the increase in all-over body tattoos, jobs seen as a traditional part of the culture, such as police and the military, are seeing new rules. In 2007, the U.S. Marines banned new tattoos extending below the elbow or knee and large tattoos on the face and neck. The next year, they banned any Marine having a so-called "sleeve" tattoo from serving as a recruiter or embassy guard.

Police departments nationwide are also banning officers from getting new visible tats, and requiring removal of any exposed images considered offensive or threatening. The Minneapolis Police Department has no ban, said spokesman Sgt. Jesse Garcia, "but we would discourage anything on the face or neck." The St. Paul Police Department has a very specific, recently updated policy, said spokesman Paul Schnell: "Tattoos that cover more than 25 percent of an exposed body part, such as a forearm, are prohibited, as are any on the neck, face or scalp."

Kristin Tillotson • 612-673-7046