[wayoverontheright]

My understanding of labor law is that if she got through the interview process, and was hired for a full-time job, then any "condition of employment" would have to be in writing, and on the job application that she will have signed.

Employers have to tread lightly even when trying to rid themselves of potential drug problems through the hiring process. If you drug test for example, as a condition of employment, then you can fire someone for doing drugs, but you had better have a subsequent drug test to prove it. If you don't drug test, then you cannot require an employee to submit to one because it was not a "condition of employment".

I'm no lawyer, maybe someone who is could set this straight, but I think she has a case that the burden would be on the employer, as in almost every other instance it is, to make it clear that not being a smoker is a condition of employment.

[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...? :)