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 ...
2. Bad body odor is a hygenic issue directly impacting on the quality of life for workplace employees, and in retail environments, the need to attract business customers. These are rational, objective considerations upon which employment decisions may turn. An employer must decide whether the smell of smoke on an employee's breath or clothes is acceptable - or not, and the rule, once made, can't be applied discriminately - made to apply to one employee and not another.
3. You ask "would an overweight model have a cause of action if she was fired for putting on weight?" Well, if the person in question is a model, or a firefighter, or a professional dancer: probably not. In such cases, the person's weight has a reasonable relationship and direct bearing on their ability to do the job. For most average cubicle-dwellers or cashiers, that's probably not the case.
Obesity in the workplace, the next crusade. - Tom
AIDS isn't the result of a voluntary activity? Injuries from sports performed outside the workplace? What about speeders? People that paint are inhaling carcinogens too? If you fill up your car yourself, you are getting your Threshhold Limit Value of benzene and MTBE for the day - and that's voluntary.
So is living under powerlines. New car smell isn't good for you either (sublimating esthers from plastics).
This is stupid. Were I buying stuff from this guy, I'd whack him for flatulating in the wrong key, and then I'd light up a Cohiba.
49 out of 50 states are "employment-at-will" jurisdictions. An employer can fire an employee for a good reason, bad reason (assuming no illegal discrimination) or no reason at all.
Absent a law protecting a certain class of people or a certain activity, that class of people can be fired.
Your employer could walk in and fire everyone wearing a red shirt. He could fire all smokers. He could fire all non-smokers. He could fire anyone who drove an SUV. He would be an ass if he did these things, but such actions would not be legally actionable.
Conversely, your employer could choose to hire only tall people, or short people, or attractive people, or skinny people.
That's not the issue. Continuing to have AIDS after you get it is not voluntary. Continuing to smoke is. That's why AIDS is covered by the ADA, but smoking isn't.
This is stupid.
I agree, but this employer has the right to be stupid.
Cancer related complications are probably also covered by the ADA, I would imagine.
Anal sex with men is the voluntary activity that may lead to AIDS. Smoking is the voluntary activity that may lead to cancer. Another cause of AIDS is sharing hyperdermic needles.
As such, can I fire all my diabetics?
Yes, cancer is covered under the ADA.
Anal sex with men is the voluntary activity that may lead to AIDS. Smoking is the voluntary activity that may lead to cancer. Another cause of AIDS is sharing hyperdermic needles.
Homosexuality and smoking are not covered by the ADA. AIDs and cancer are.
As such, can I fire all my diabetics?
No.
The words "freely set the conditions" doesn't really apply in this instance, though, does it? These workers were employed by the company prior to the new rules going into effect. The terms they "freely" agreed to changed. I think they would be pretty silly to agree to not smoke in their off hours as a condition of employement, and then be surprised that their refusal to honor their agreement results in their termination. However, in this instance, the rules were changed ex post facto. In some states (unlike Illinios, where this same company was forced to retain a smoker they employ despite the new rule, thanks to state laws) this is perfectly legal.
I still think it's unethical, and I would like to see this company get the hammering they deserve for their actions. Loss of customers would be a great way to start. I know I would never go to work for a company that treated their employees so shabbily. All in the name of making a buck? Honestly, I don't think that was their motive, as they had other options for dealing with those workers if all that really concerned them was the bottom line.
I smoked for the same reason a person engages in sexual activities...pleasure and enjoyment. I am as aware of the risks of smoking as anyone is aware of the risks of multiple sexual partners.
Life is full of cause and effects. Actions have consequences.
This is a control issue disguised as an economic issue.
The ACLU is too busy. They don't have time for smokers. I have repeatedly sent them letters, as a card carrying member, asking for help on smoking issues. I've sent my letters to the Chairman, The Illinois Chapter, and anyone I thought might be able to help on their list. All I have received in return are computer generated letters and invitations for me to become a member. They don't read anything. I'm not renewing my membership.....they are useless, except to persecute the Boy Scouts.
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com
Illinois Smokers Group - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/illinoissmokers/
mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!
That is basically true. However:
All U.S. States recognize retaliatory discharge as an exception to the at-will rule. Under the retaliatory discharge exception, an employer may not fire an employee if it would violate the State's public policy or a State or Federal statute.
Most states also recognize an implied contract as an exception to at-will employment. Implied employment contracts are most often found when an employer's personnel policies or handbooks indicate that an employee will not be fired except for good cause or specify a procedural process for firing. If the employer fires the employee in violation of an implied employment contract, the employer may be found liable for breach of contract.
A much smaller number of States have also recognized a breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as an exception to at-will employment. Although all States have a number of statutory protections for employees, most wrongful termination suits brought under statutory causes of action use the Federal anti-discrimination statutes which prohibit firing or refusing to hire an employee because of race, gender, age, or religion. (Most of us on this forum find the breadth of such laws as a noxious interference with free enterprise, but let's leave that aside for now).
The bottom line is: aside from generalized layoffs, it's very difficult for most companies to fire any person for any reason except for poor performance (and even that must be well documented).
If the cigars and pipe smoking material is made from tobacco, then they are included...since they are enforcing a "tobacco free" company.
Nobody wants to address that point. Most so-called Conservatives gladly replace governmental tyranny with corporate enslavement. Especially when it involves others.
To continue my thought about male gays and the "diseases" associated with them.......if the company's idea is to save money in future health care costs, they might as well start "discriminating" against gay males, too.
I challenge them to compare the cost of treating a single lung cancer patient with a 6-month life expectancy to treating a gay male with AIDS for the rest of his life!
AIDS isn't necessarily a death sentence anymore and the drug costs to keep an AIDS patient alive are "phenominal" compared to the cost of treating other diseases, IMO.
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.