Look at professional sports figures, military contractors, airline pilots.
While he should have grandfathered in employees already working there, it's not legally required.
For all you folks making the point about smokers being a net drain - bs.
It's well known that a study has been done that says smokers cost less to society, in the long run, than nonsmokers. So put that in your pipes and smoke it.
While I, personally, wouldn't work for this man unless he wants to pay me in the high 6 figures, whether I smoked or not, others may think differently.
The only way this man is going to be hurt by this is for the consumer to do it. Most companies aren't going to stop doing business with this man for this reason.
And yes, anyone wants to pay me $500,000 or more to quit smoking, I will.
"Sorry, proud, this cretin can certainly, legally, fire any employee for things done in their off time if it's against company policy."
For the moment.
The problem is that this sort of power "exists" until someone really tries to use it and that becomes known.
Then the democracy or the judiciary make sure that nobody else can, legally, fire employees for, say, smoking in their off time whether it's against company policy or not, without a compelling reason.
Folks who are standing up for this employer are just begging for government regulators and courts to step in here and hammer down another hard, fast, expensive rule limiting employers.
Employment-at-will is a right. Any right can be abused. Firing smokers for smoking off duty in their own homes, or heavy people, is an abuse of that right. Now that it has the public's attention, there will be litigation and legislation, and ilico presto, we'll discover that no, the employer really DIDN'T have the right to do that.
It would be a great deal easier, and better for everyone, if this employer were urged to back down and stop this NOW, before we start getting court decisions and government mandates that take away more than just employers' ability to fire smokers and the overweight. Once lawmaking crashes into gear, things generally don't turn out very well.
All that can be avoided if business will agree, as a common-sense principle, that employment-at-will just doesn't go this far, that what this guy has done is an abuse.
Unfortunately, I see that there are folks who want to defend this.
So, we're going to end up with regulation, and judicial fiats, that create all sorts of new liabilities for employers.
There is a time when the wise back down.
And this is it, on this issue.