Posted on 01/25/2005 8:59:47 AM PST by WestVirginiaRebel
LANSING, Mich.-Four employees of a health care company have been fired for refusing to take a test to determine whether they smoke cigarettes.
Weyco Inc., a health benefits administrator based in Okemos, Mich., adopted a policy Jan. 1 that allows employees to be fired if they smoke, even if the smoking happens after business hours at home.
(Excerpt) Read more at wral.com ...
I have, in various contracts and other issues.
It all depends on the nature of the issue, I suppose. Are you suggesting that attorneys commonly would handle business related litigation in another state for which they are not admitted?
BTW...Im not an attorney, but a business owner.
Generally, yes. You get local counsel to make court appearances for you if you can't get admitted pro hac vice, but many lawyers (especially at larger firms) will handle lawsuits and/or commercial transactions in other states.
When I worked we were being paid by the company for our breaks and were supposed to stay on company property because of liability-----we were not actually being paid for our lunch hour so could leave the property.
I stand corrected then.
Since you didn't answer the question then I presume you won't whine if he tells you to grab your stuff and do your "mission critical FReeping" elsewhere?
They are. So are other diseases. Smoking related diseases tend to differ from others. Cancer and emphysema from smoking tend to be late onset diseases. Employers would on average to get many years of productive employment from an individual before any diseases manifest. Other "behavior factor" illnesses tend to manifest themselves much earlier in life. I'd like to see some statistics on the "costs" smokers cause the employer vs the costs others bring.
Young fertile women add significantly health care costs on a company every time they have a baby. Not only for the immediate costs and lost work time, but by adding another body that will require 20 years of expenses.
By personal observation, obese employees add far more medical costs at far younger ages than smokers who tend to remain thiner. Are 20 years worth of medications to treat weight related diabetes and all of its myriad of complications less expensive than say several months of cancer therapy for a dying smoker who statistically is more likely to be retired (and thus off the employers health care) or nearing retirement after years of productive employment.
Should a company fire pregnant women or individuals who exceed normal body weight because it's good for the bottom line?
I have a feeling that from a cost analysis, this company could not justify its actions unless it treated other common 'behavior' related health conditions in the same way. It looks, on the surface, to be political correctness run wild.
A jerk yes, but only within the confines of a jerk UNDER the law.
Why not force employees not to own guns?
This would not stand court scrutiny particularly when it does not involve the job.
"You know, I'm going to start thanking
the woman who cleans the restroom in
the building I work in. I'm going to start
thinking of her as a human being"
How unfortunate it is that the American taxpayer gets saddled with the costs of medical treatment and the reconfiguration of workplaces to accomodate people whose disability is the result of their own reckless behavior. And since when are employers able to fire gay people? A protected minority I believe. You need to get a clue dude.
Google is your friend. Only 13 States plus DC outlaw discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation. An additional 8 states outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation in public employment (i.e. government employment) only. There are no federal laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Supreme Court has ruled that sexual orientation is not a protected class.
In most of the US, it is perfectly legal to fire someone for being gay (or straight, or bisexual or whatever).
See:
http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/states/antidiscrimi-map
"You may not like it, but you can go work somewhere else then. You have that choice, to work some where else. He has the right to expect lower medical costs, fewer health issues, etc., because he does not employ smokers."
Agreed. I own a small business and the benefits of owning one are few and far between. It is good that I can make these kinds of decisions as to what my direct costs of running that business is. It is human nature that employees want it all and business owners want profit.
MAYBE it would slow the rate of increase temporarily but nobodies health care insurance costs are going down.
Lambda Legal. I can't imagine why I've never consulted an unbiased source like that before. Thanks for the heads up. Oh by the way Modernman....YOU'RE FIRED!!</sarcasm>
Bottom line, insurance companies, and the hr divisions that service them have gotten the idea that they run things. And that ain't no way to run a business. When bottom line concerns are subjugated to social (political) aims, the industry has become decadent.
We're all gonna die from "something".
Don't forget gays!
Whatever their bias, their research on the various anti-discrimination laws is correct. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
You claimed that homosexuals are a protected class. You are wrong. Your smartass comments cannot cover that fact.
It's a private company. There is nothing wrong with this.
There is lots wrong with this.
It's none of that company's business what an employee does in their off hours.
This is America not the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
I pray they get their asses sued off and stop this crap.
Exactly. That's why private employers and their employees can freely set the conditions of their relationship. One of these conditions can be rules against smoking, even in an employee's private time.
The fact that it's a private company does not give it the right to fire people for any reason whatsoever. Employment is a relationship resulting from express and/or implied contractual obligations on both parties. Contract employment binds both parties to the terms of a written agreement, while "employment-at-will" creates obligations most often bounded by objective tests - reasonable expectations and rational relationships to the ability to perform one's duties. You may be able to fire a smoker because their habit interferes with their productivity (and this must be documented). You may fire a smoker because their employment contract contains an agreement not to smoke on the job, or to quit after a given period of time (again documentation would be required). You cannot, however, fire a smoker because they will cost you more to insure them (if so, you shouldn't have hired a person you knew was a smoker). You cannot fire a smoker simply because you don't like the way they smell - any more than you can fire an obese person because you don't like the way they look.
The Government has unfortunately complicated contract and labor law through the imposition of all manner of awful non-objective and punitive (to employers) measures (see: OSHA) so that traditional standards of responsibility and liability no longer hold. As with so much else about modern jurisprudence, common sense went out the window a long time ago, and lawyers helped push it off the ledge.
Smokers are not a protected class anywhere in the US. There is no law anywhere that protects them from being fired for their behavior.
You cannot fire a smoker simply because you don't like the way they smell
Sure you can. There is no law anywhere in this country preventing you from firing someone for having bad body odor.
any more than you can fire an obese person because you don't like the way they look.
Obese people are not protected by the ADA. Only in a very few places are they protected by law (DC being one of them). You are free to hire and fire people based on looks and weight, in most circumstances. As an example, would an overwight model have a cause of action if she was fired for putting on weight? Of course not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.