Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SACKED AND I'M FUMING (Fired for smoking)
The Mirror ^ | 12/23/05 | Richard Smith

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."


TOPICS: Business/Economy; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: fired; libertarians; pufflist; smoking; smokingandfuming; wodlist; workplace
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-194 next last
She should have been asked in the interview whether she smoked or not.
1 posted on 12/23/2005 7:13:35 AM PST by Millee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Millee

aah, memories of HS restrooms


2 posted on 12/23/2005 7:14:32 AM PST by sure_fine (*not one to over kill the thought process*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Millee

Boycott dataflow


3 posted on 12/23/2005 7:15:42 AM PST by LtKerst (Lt Kerst)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Millee

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.

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.





Oh yea... < /sarc >


4 posted on 12/23/2005 7:15:58 AM PST by Paloma_55 (Which part of "Common Sense" do you not understand???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Millee

Would the company be able to fire or not hire persons who engage in anal sex?


5 posted on 12/23/2005 7:18:08 AM PST by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Millee

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.


6 posted on 12/23/2005 7:18:35 AM PST by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

Whats the difference whether the descimination occurred during the interview, or after her hiring?

7 posted on 12/23/2005 7:19:24 AM PST by Go Gordon (I don't know what your problem is, but I bet its hard to pronounce)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Millee
The homosexual lifestyle is much more unhealthy than smoking 10 cigs a day...wonder if a company could do the exact same thing...
8 posted on 12/23/2005 7:19:24 AM PST by 2banana (My common ground with terrorists - They want to die for Islam, and we want to kill them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Millee

Tough stuff lady! You work at the pleasure of the employer, not the other way around. The employer told you "SEE YA, WOULDN'T WANNA BE YA!"


9 posted on 12/23/2005 7:19:36 AM PST by xrp (Conservative votes are to Republicans what 90% of black votes are to Democrats (taken for granted))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus

Probably if they're doing it on company time. Eeeuw.


10 posted on 12/23/2005 7:19:52 AM PST by generally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

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

If told only non-smokers were to apply, she should not have applied. If you can't live with the rules, don't take the job.

11 posted on 12/23/2005 7:20:28 AM PST by JimRed ("Hey, hey, Teddy K., how many girls did you drown today?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

I hear most smokers can quit anytime they want.

Maybe she should have just quit.


12 posted on 12/23/2005 7:21:26 AM PST by Registered (They couldn't find the artist, so they hung the picture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sure_fine

Yeah, I remember the HS rest rooms. But you know what I always wondered about? What did the girls do with the cigarette if a teacher walked in? In the boys room there were urinals and it was a simple matter to lay the butt down and since they had to catch you with the butt in your hand we never got caught (well, almost never).


13 posted on 12/23/2005 7:22:36 AM PST by Eagles Talon IV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Millee

This person needs to know that in Great Britain you have NO rights, and that you are a "Subject of the Crown". It is one the many downfalls of living(existing) in a Monarcy.


14 posted on 12/23/2005 7:22:43 AM PST by zzen01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: generally
Probably if they're doing it on company time. Eeeuw.

Butt photocopiers should get the sack.

15 posted on 12/23/2005 7:23:06 AM PST by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JimRed
If told only non-smokers were to apply, she should not have applied. If you can't live with the rules, don't take the job.

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? My tag line probably applies to you.

16 posted on 12/23/2005 7:23:20 AM PST by Go Gordon (I don't know what your problem is, but I bet its hard to pronounce)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay
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.

Federal law doesn't apply - this is in Britain.

17 posted on 12/23/2005 7:23:26 AM PST by brewcrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: xrp
Tough stuff lady! You work at the pleasure of the employer, not the other way around.

And how exactly would you react to being fired for being a Republican?

18 posted on 12/23/2005 7:24:53 AM PST by Centurion2000 ((Aubrey, Tx) --- America, we get the best government corporations can buy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus
Would the company be able to fire or not hire persons who engage in anal sex?

Probably so....if they did it in the office . ;&)

19 posted on 12/23/2005 7:24:54 AM PST by River_Wrangler (Nothing difficult is ever easy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Millee

While I don't agree with the filing of lawsuit, I don't understand why a company would have such a policy. A policy against smoking on the premises or taking smoke breaks is understandable, but this? Pure lunacy.


20 posted on 12/23/2005 7:25:14 AM PST by VegasCowboy ("...he wore his gun outside his pants, for all the honest world to feel.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-194 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson