SACKED AND I'M FUMING (Fired for smoking)

The Mirror ^ | 12/23/05 | Richard Smith

[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."

[SandRat]

Let's see do they ask any of the other detrimental lifestyle questions....

are you and alcoholic
are you a drug addict
do you sleep with anything that comes by striking your fancy
do you just cast off and not use seat belts
are you an overeater (LARDBUTT that needs Omar the Tent-maker as a seamstress)

Guess those would be intolerant to ask. Her barrister should point out the attitude inconsistency when the young lady gets her case before the Crown's Court.

[Centurion2000]

I'm not a Republican, but if I were and I were fired for it, I guess I'd have to find another job. YOU?

I guess I'd be like this guy ...

... and just burn down the building.

THEN go find another job.

[FlyVet]

Wait until they do genetic testing. Got a predisposition for heart disease? Cancer? Mental illness? Good luck getting a job, or at least a job with any health benefits. Off to the shower rooms with you!

[bray]

Homosexual sex is not unhealthy behavior. It may shorten your life by 20 years, but it is quite healthy according to political correctness.

Pray for W and Our Victorious Troops

[Rummyfan]

She should get the ACLU to help her out. Smoking is not wrong, it is an alternative way of breathing. She is a victim. She needs understanding. They are smokophobic.

Actually I think that might fly!

[TexasRepublic]

Hotsy-Totsy, more little Nazis.

[xrp]

You wouldn't go to the beach and get mai tais and margaritas without the salt?

[HairOfTheDog]

She should have been asked in the interview whether she smoked or not.

I'd bet it was. I wouldn't just take her word for it.

I've been on a lot of interviews with smoke free companies, I've seen their ads in the paper, and it's always mentioned if they fell this strongly about it.

FWIW... I smoke, and I've hidden that fact before for employment. But that was my risk and I knew it. I think this lady did too. Hey - it was her first day and they fired her because they smelled it on her. At least they didn't fire her after knowing about it for some time.

[DumpsterDiver]

Non-homosexual only hiring? Non-religeous people only hiring? Non-alcohol consuming people only? Non-fast food eating people only? Non-fat people only? Non-perfume/cologne using people only?

As the freedom-loving (ha!) man in the article stated:

"It's positive discrimination and we're proud of it."

[xrp]

Yes, this has all either happened or will happen in the Orwellian world that has arrived.

Inappropriate label and comparison. Orwell's 1984 had to do with government. This is a private employer that wishes to set certain criteria on who will be hired vs who will not be hired, absent government interference. Any true conservative should support any employer who choses not to employ smokers.

[Badray]

My first reaction was that this was outrageous.

Then as I read through the comments, I realized that my reaction was wrong if you believe in freedom. Maybe they handled it badly because it wasn't clear they didn't hire smokers, but shouldn't the employer have the right to hire only those he wants to hire -- for any reason, no matter how ridiculous or how discriminatory others might perceive that decision?

Whose job is it anyway? The worker's or the employer's?

[cgbg]

Sorry smokers... SMOKING/SMOKERS are not a "protected class" under the law.. IT is not illegal, at least under federal law to turn away someone because they smoke

In 1920 blacks were not a "protected class" under the law. It was not illegal to turn away someone because they were black.

[Lokibob]

I was doing a job interview once, and the lady I was interviewing asked if I minded if she smoked.

My secretary, a smoker, as was I, said "Hire her Bob, right now". She got the job BECAUSE she smoked.

[Badray]

I'm not a Republican, but if I were and I were fired for it, I guess I'd have to find another job. YOU?

Exactly right. I've been fired more than most people. Sometimes it's been for dubious reasons, but I've never wanted to work for someone that didn't want me there. I always just went and got a new job.

[DBeers]

Actually, there is a genetic pre-disposition of some people to smoke. Much like the "gay" gene, she is bound by her genetic predisposition to engage in an unhealthy behavior.

LOL

[RandallFlagg]

Thank God for folks like you two.

[cgbg]

If you compare the sick time and medical bills of people who have children of school age with those (of the same age) who do not it will be clear that parents take off more sick time than non parents because kids catch a lot of contagious diseases and pass them on to their parents. Should employers refuse to hire parents?

[lewislynn]

Non-homosexual only hiring? Non-religeous people only hiring? Non-alcohol consuming people only? Non-fast food eating people only? Non-fat people only? Non-perfume/cologne using people only?

Sounds good to me. Who would be next on the next government dictated must hire list? People who don't speak the language? Can't read or write?

[xrp]

Should employers refuse to hire parents?

Sure. If they want. That should be their right.

[solitas]

Right - if it's on the paper she signed (attesting that she'd read and understood and would comply with everything so listed as a 'condition of employment') then "she hasn't a leg to stand upon".

If the "conditions of employment" state something, and everyone else is abiding it with no problem(s), then guess what...? :)