Legal/Ethical Challenge

LEGAL/ETHICAL CHALLENGE Should Store Managers Force Employees to Pierce Kids' Ears Against Their Wishes? A former Claire's employee in Edmonton, Canada. is calling out the accessories chain for its piercing policies. Raylene Marks believes store employees should respect children's boundaries with regard to their bodies. She described a recent distressing situation in which a 7yearold child's mother continually pressured her to allow Marks to pierce her ears. \"The girl pleaded and sobbed for 30 minutes not to be pierced\" . . . \"Despite mom saying, 'Honey, we can go home whenever you want,' she was not letting her daughter go home. She was putting a great deal of pressure on her daughter to go through with the piercing,\" said Marks. She added that the child was \"articulate, smart and well aware of herselfand her body" and \"expressed that she didn't want us touching her, that we were standing too close, that she was feeling uncomfortable.\" Marks says the child \"made it clear she no longer wanted to get her ears pierced." The mother eventually left the store without forcing her child to have her ears pierced. Marks later informed her manager that she would not have consented to do the piercing without the child's express consent to and comfort with the procedure. Marks says her manager told her thejob required herto pierce children's ears even if they were being physically restrained by guardians and in clear distress. Policy 509 in the company's manual states that \"We reserve the right to refuse an ear piercing if a successful one cannot be done,\" but Marks says the policy makes no mention of physical restraint or employees' rights to refuse to pierce clue to child welfare concerns. Marks quit herjob at Claire's after the conversation with her manager. She says any subsequent refusals ofthis sort would have resulted in her being disciplined and potentially red. Marks has written an open letter to the company asking them to \"Please do better\" and update their policy to address children's domain over their bodies. She says corporate has since informed her that they are reviewing and revising their policy and investigating how Marks' store manager handled the incident.152 What Would You Recommend to Claire's Regarding Their Store Policies on Piercing? 1. Claire's policy doesn't specifically address child consent, but it is ambiguous enough to allow for employees to use discretion in such cases without fear of termination. Marks' manager simply interpreted the policy incorrectly. Claire's should do a betterjob training their managers in the application of company policies. 2. Stores should be allowed to come up with their own policies and parents should be left to parent as they see fit. The manager wasn't breaking any laws or violating company policy. therefore she was correct in telling Marks that herjob would have required her to pierce without the child's consent. Claire's should not have to revise its policy. 3. Claire's should revise its policy to clearly address child safety concerns. No child should be forced to be pierced against their will, and employees should have the discretion to refuse to pierce children's ears for these reasons. 4. Invent other options