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

Skip to comments.

Mass. smoker sues over firing
Boston.com ^ | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 | Sacha Pfeiffer

Posted on 11/29/2006 3:01:47 PM PST by GQuagmire

A Buzzards Bay man has filed a civil rights lawsuit against The Scotts Company, the lawn care giant, which fired him after a drug test showed nicotine in his urine, putting him in violation of a company policy forbidding employees to smoke on or off the job

(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 221-237 next last
To: highimpact
"start your own company and make your own rules"

That's what I did...and I smoke in my office all the time. I just have to be careful I don't "offend" any Smoke Nazi's out in public now.....

81 posted on 11/29/2006 4:57:19 PM PST by traditional1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: NEPA

Just goes to show you that when you accept goodies from anyone, especially Uncle Sam, you give up some of your freedom. Letting your employer decide your private lifestyle in exchange for medical benefits is a perfect example.

I personally think the stockholder driven quarter to quarter performance metrics are one of the banes of modern corporate decision making but that's another discusion entirely.


82 posted on 11/29/2006 4:57:54 PM PST by saganite (Billions and billions and billions-------and that's just the NASA budget!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Mister Da
While I agree with the company's right to fire the man, as a smoker, I wont be buying Scott products anymore.

Absolutely right. You have every right to fire Scotts as your supplier. I'd do the same, but I've found that Scott's stuff is overpriced and no better than the store brands. Haven't bought the brand in years.

83 posted on 11/29/2006 4:58:05 PM PST by magslinger (When Law enforcement enforce idiotic Laws of Bad Politicians there are no good guys.-Phantom Patriot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: unixfox
Why would anyone want to work for a company like that in the first place?

That's why it's called "employment at-will." I can choose to hire you for my own reasons, you can choose to quit for your own reasons, or you can choose not to apply for your own reasons, as long as none of those reasons are "protected" under the law (i.e., protected status). If you don't like the way a company discriminates legally, then don't work for them.

84 posted on 11/29/2006 4:58:51 PM PST by highimpact
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: traditional1
That's what I did...and I smoke in my office all the time. I just have to be careful I don't "offend" any Smoke Nazi's out in public now.....

Awesome. I love hearing from fellow entrepreneurs. I'm with you on the Smoke Nazi's in public, but I don't smoke in my office because I don't like the lingering smell. Plus, it gives me an excuse to take a 10-minute break and pace outside (that's when I do my best thinking).

85 posted on 11/29/2006 5:02:06 PM PST by highimpact
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: NEPA
I don't smoke and I don't agree with the policy but it is a private company, not government, and they should be able to hire and fire anyone they want to within reason.

So, if your company creates a policy that blacks are not welcome in your company, you will be ok with that too? How about people who eat too much? Do they have a urine test for chocolate consumption too? The last time I checked, both cigarettes and chocolate are legal products?

Unbelievable!!!!!!

86 posted on 11/29/2006 5:05:21 PM PST by ErieGeno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ErieGeno

Heaven help you if you get caught with a contraband twinkie in your lunch box !


87 posted on 11/29/2006 5:06:59 PM PST by traditional1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: GQuagmire

If an employee wanted to quit because of something his boss did in his personal time, should he be forced to keep his job with the company, or is it ok for him to quit?


88 posted on 11/29/2006 5:08:48 PM PST by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GQuagmire
Rodrigues said he decided to file suit because, "What's to make them stop at just cigarettes? If they're a Republican company, can they try and figure out who you vote for and if you vote for the Democrats they'll fire you? What if you don't want to hire women, so if you have Y chromosome in your drug test you fail?

Brilliant.

89 posted on 11/29/2006 5:09:23 PM PST by Young Scholar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
Ahhhh....you have found the key. It is a short step, from, "You must not..." to "You must..."

Nobody around here seems to get that.

90 posted on 11/29/2006 5:10:19 PM PST by patton (Sanctimony frequently reaps its own reward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: ErieGeno
So, if your company creates a policy that blacks are not welcome in your company, you will be ok with that too?

Different thing entirely. Race is protected under the Civil Rights Act of (IIRC) 1967. Discriminating based on race is suicidal from a legal standpoint and a public relations standpoint.

How about people who eat too much? Do they have a urine test for chocolate consumption too? The last time I checked, both cigarettes and chocolate are legal products?

That's my call as an employer. If you don't like it, find another job or start your own company. Also, airlines and the entertainment industry have the legal right to discriminate based on weight and body mass. A 400lb person can't navigate the narrow aisle of an airplane, and the same person wouldn't look good in a bikini on the cover of Sports Illustrated. Those things fall under the BFOQ (bona fide occupational qualification) statutes.

91 posted on 11/29/2006 5:11:51 PM PST by highimpact
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: patton
""You must not..." to "You must..."Is that "you must not smoke at any time" or "you must refrain from smoking at any time?"

That's the key you mean?

92 posted on 11/29/2006 5:12:16 PM PST by traditional1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: traditional1
Heaven help you if you get caught with a contraband twinkie in your lunch box !

I guess the Equal Employment Opportunity rules are just going to have to be expanded now, aren't they?

93 posted on 11/29/2006 5:13:30 PM PST by ErieGeno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: magslinger

"Interrogative?"

Declarative.

About 5 years ago all Michigan laws forbidding dueling were rescinded.


94 posted on 11/29/2006 5:13:37 PM PST by sergeantdave (Consider that nearly half the people you pass on the street meet Lenin's definition of useful idiot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: highimpact

You are exactly right. And if good workers don't want to work for you, you pay the price in the marketplace. If better workers DO want to work for you because of your policies, you win.

It's a little thing we call freedom and property rights.


95 posted on 11/29/2006 5:14:36 PM PST by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: ErieGeno

That's where we're headed, I reckon'.....


96 posted on 11/29/2006 5:15:36 PM PST by traditional1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: GQuagmire

If a condition of employment runs twenty-four hours a day, shouldn't the employee be paid for a twenty-four hour day?


97 posted on 11/29/2006 5:16:12 PM PST by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: highimpact

Not sure about the redheads only policy, since that has racil implications, but otherwise I agree.


98 posted on 11/29/2006 5:16:18 PM PST by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: SAJ
On the same premise, it would be quite proper to fire someone who dyed their hair, wore an unattractive perfume, participated in drag racing in their off time, thousands of things.

You don't think they should be allowed to fire people for those first two? Those aren't even off-time activities, they are things that directly affect the work environment and the atmosphere/image of the company.

99 posted on 11/29/2006 5:16:30 PM PST by Young Scholar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: traditional1

No, "you must not use tobacco", to "You must take a shower in this room with concrete soap, and zyklon-B showerheads."


100 posted on 11/29/2006 5:17:52 PM PST by patton (Sanctimony frequently reaps its own reward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 221-237 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