Heavily-Tattooed Woman Says It’s “Not Fair” That She Can’t Get A Job

Putnam’s first complaint centered around the impersonal nature of receiving a rejection email rather than a phone call. While this is common practice for large corporations, she felt it was insensitive given her efforts in applying for the job.
Upon visiting her local TJ Maxx to inquire about the rejection in person, Putnam was told by an employee that she lacked sufficient experience for the position. However, she suspected that her tattoos played a significant role in the decision, despite the employee’s assurance to the contrary.
Despite her disappointment, Putnam emphasized that she did not necessarily need the job but was seeking additional income to pay off debt more quickly. However, she found it unfair that her tattoos seemed to be a determining factor in her employability.

Putnam’s visible tattoos include imagery with Satanic connotations, such as a goat representing the deity Baphomet and a Leviathan Cross. While it’s unclear whether hiring managers saw her tattoos during the application process, thousands of TikTok users commented on her post, suggesting that her tattoos likely influenced the decision.
Some commenters argued that visible tattoos could be perceived as unprofessional, especially in customer-facing roles like those at TJ Maxx. Others pointed out the challenge for young adults without prior work experience to secure employment if companies prioritize experience over potential.

The incident raised broader questions about societal attitudes towards body modifications and hiring practices. Putnam questioned why tattoos should be a barrier to employment, especially when many individuals with tattoos are highly capable workers.
While there’s no definitive evidence that Putnam’s tattoos directly led to her rejection, the incident highlights the ongoing debate surrounding appearance-based discrimination in the workplace. As discussions continue, it’s essential to consider how hiring practices can be more inclusive and equitable for all candidates, regardless of their appearance.

Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck Are ‘Focused on Their Separate Lives’ This Summer After Her Trip

The couple currently “don’t have any summer plans together,” a source tells PEOPLE.

According to a source who spoke with PEOPLE, Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck are “focused on their separate lives” this summer due to marital discord.

According to a person close to Lopez, the pair “don’t have any summer plans together” at this time.

Lopez just got back to Los Angeles from her vacation in Europe. The actress “enjoyed her trip to Europe,” according to the insider, and “has more travel planned, but is back in L.A. for now.”

The Academy Award-winning director moved all of his belongings out of the couple’s Beverly Hills mansion before Lopez returned from her trip to Europe, a source previously told PEOPLE, more than a month after PEOPLE first revealed that Affleck, 51, and Lopez, 54, were living apart in Los Angeles as they dealt with marital discord.

Ben is still residing in the rented property in Brentwood. He has been there for the past two months, according to a different source. “He appears to be alright. He appears to be focused on his work and has been at his workplace every day. He is also interacting with his children.

After the Atlas actress returned from her trip, the couple got back together on June 26. They were seen going individually inside a West Hollywood building where they both have offices.

According to a source, Affleck and Lopez “remain friendly” and are concentrating on their careers and families despite the rumors regarding their romance. In a heartfelt Father’s Day homage, Lopez even posted a picture of Affleck, dubbed “our hero,” on her Instagram Story on June 16.

While Lopez shares her twins Emme and Max, 16, with her ex-husband Marc Anthony, Affleck is the father of three children with his ex-wife Jennifer Garner: Violet, 18, Seraphina, 15, and Samuel, 12.

Related Posts

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*