Posted on 12/23/2005 7:13:34 AM PST by Millee
SACKED smoker Sophie Blinman threatened to take her former employers to court yesterday, fuming: "I'm furious. Surely this is discrimination."
Stunned Sophie, 21, was given the boot 45 minutes after starting her new job even though she promised not to light up in office hours.
Her bosses declared: "It's positive discrimination and we're proud of it." Experts agreed the company was not breaking the law. But smokers' pressure group Forest said: "This is outrageous."
Sophie, who smokes five to 10 cigarettes a day, was delighted to land her £6-an-hour job as an administrator at Dataflow Communications.
She said: "I dressed smartly, arrived in good time and was about to be taken on a tour of the offices when I was asked if I smoked. When I said I did, I immediately sensed a problem.
"I explained I'd happily wait until my lunch break to smoke, and leave the premises to do so. But I was told the company didn't employ smokers and there was no longer a position for me.
"I can't believe a business is allowed to have a policy against employing smokers. I was never even asked at my interview if I smoked."
Threatening legal action, Sophie, of Shepton Mallet, Somerset, added: "This has left me angered and unemployed. I shall be seeking legal advice."
Dataflow, which employs 20 workers at its offices in Wells, advertises its non-smokers policy on its website.
Managing director Fran Edwards said: "All our employees have been recruited on this basis. We can't make an exception."
Information Services boss Ian Murray added: "We didn't ask Sophie at her interview if she was a smoker because we assumed the agency that sent her only asked non-smokers to apply."
Employment lawyer Frank Ryan said: "This is unusual, but it doesn't breach the law. Sophie won't qualify for unfair dismissal but she might challenge on the grounds of human rights."
Forest said: "Only smokers can be discriminated against without penalty."
Discriminating on the basis of "smoking" -- that is like, so last century!
I wasn't talking about an alcoholic---I was talking about someone who just takes an occasional drink.
An occasional smoker would pay higher rates than an occasional smoker.
No, what I'm supporting is the right of people to be as stupid as they want to be. If they choose to discriminate, they pay the consequences. Our society has changed since the days of segregation, and the market's payback is a b*tch.
The government doesn't have the right to say with whom I will or won't associate in my private business.
The really sick part is that a couple of company queers could be getting it on in the broom closet and if the employers tried to fire them, the ACLU would rush to defend their "right" to exercise their perversion on company time and property (and the employer would probably be charged with a hate crime besides), yet smokers can't even smoke on their own time and property.
LOL---Guess I goofed on that one!
Makes for a confusing mindset as to the definition of "right and wrong" doesn't it?
All we need is a bigger gray area to concerns and the politicians can reap from all.
Gosh, hate is illegal when alternative lifestyles are promoted with fervor.
What is available to stop such a twisted acceptance of mindset?
I have a problem with this too.
The difference is that she accepted employment, thereby terminating her search for employment with another company. They did not tell her that not smoking was a condition of employment. They could just have easily asked her if she wore a thong and fired her for that. The question should have been asked prior to the offer of employment, and prior to her acceptance of such.
You can hired whoever you want to but to say I refuse to hire this person BECAUSE he/she is Black, smokes, over weight, White, female, male, etc. IS DESCRIMINATION no matter how you attempt to spin it.
She accepted employment, thereby terminating her search for employment with another company. They did not tell her that not smoking was a condition of employment. They could just have easily asked her if she wore a thong and fired her for that. The question should have been asked prior to the offer of employment, and prior to her acceptance of such. This is not an acceptable business practice. Had they asked her during the interview, then told her that they had nothing for her because she was a smoker, I wouldn't have a problem with that. She did nothing wrong.
Well, at the least, they owe her compensation for the amount of time of hers they wasted in the interview\prep process.
I'm not attempting to spin anything. You are simply not understanding me. Yes, it IS discrimination. I have said so. I don't like discrimination. But I don't think it's the role of government to force someone not to discriminate.
You feel that that IS a proper role of government.
I've been as clear as I can on this. I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree.
Forget it. No need to argue with this 'true conservative any more.
"As long as you drug addicts get your fix, I guess."
Therein lies the key to all his posts.
You got sacked in a HS restroom?
You got sacked in a HS restroom?
suspended twice for smoking in restroom
after the second whopin, they didn't catch me again
That dog don't hunt...just look whose camels nose is under the lip of the tent...
Sit down, shut up, and get in line....that of course would be the PC line...there is no place for logic and common sense in this debate...
People who smoke don't realize how much they stink.
"Stink", etc. is a subjective thing, to each his own, however the "stink" can be washed off..........attitudes can't be.
Merry Christmas.
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.