Court Dismisses Police Officers' Class Action Complaint Regarding Anti-Tattoo Policy

In a recent order in Medici, et al. v. City of Chicago, Case No. 15 C 5891, 2015 WL 6501153 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 27, 2015), Judge Charles P. Kocoras of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed a class action brought by three City of Chicago police officers who alleged that a new Chicago Police Department policy requiring on-duty officers to cover personal tattoos violated the officers' First Amendment rights.

This opinion is instructive for public and private employers formulating and enforcing uniform and dress code policies.

Case Background

On June 8, 2015 the Chicago Police Department ("CPD") revised its uniform policy to require on-duty officers to cover tattoos on their hands, face, neck, and other areas not covered by clothing, with skin tone adhesive bandages or tattoo covers. Id. at *1. Three CPD officers, Daniel Medici, Dennis Leet and John Kukielka ("Plaintiffs"), had religious tattoos, and Medici also had a tattoo relating to his service as a U.S. Marine. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on July 2, 2015, against the City of Chicago ("City"), alleging the City had violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by infringing on their First Amendment rights to display their tattoos. Plaintiffs also complained that the new tattoo policy required them to wear additional clothing or adhesives that subjected them to overheating, skin irritation, and discomfort. Id. Plaintiffs sought class certification, a declaratory judgment that the tattoo policy was unduly broad and violated the First Amendment, and an award of attorneys' fees, costs, and other appropriate relief. Id.

The City moved the Court to dismiss the complaint as a matter of law, arguing that the Court could dismiss the complaint without any discovery because Plaintiffs had articulated in their complaint the City's interest in "promot[ing] uniformity and professionalism" in adopting the tattoo policy. Id. at *2.

The Court's Decision

The Court agreed with the City that the Plaintiffs, by including in their complaint a statement of the City's interest in the tattoo policy, afforded the Court the factual allegations sufficient to scrutinize the tattoo policy under two prevailing First Amendment "balancing tests" articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), and United States v. National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), 513 U.S. 454 (1995), respectively. Applying in turn each of the...