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."
I wonder if the company refuses to hire people who have promiscuous sex? Surely the health care costs of STDs, HIV, infertility, abortions, and unwanted pregnancies far outweigh the costs associated with smoking.
Most smokers don't run into trouble until they are at or past retirement age.
As the rules/regulations keep piling up from the Behavior Police, and entire new class of liars is likely to be spawned.
Are they going to fire people who drink too much? Are overweight? Eat too much junk food? Race motorcycles on the weekend?
Now if she were a lesbian providing sex acts during office hours, she would be promoted.
If you can fire smokers for their unhealthy behavior (which you should be able to do if you're paying their health benefits), why shouldn't you be able to fire people who engage in highly dangerous sexual behavior?
So you're out of luck in Nazi Britian if you happen to smoke. Anal sex is groovy, however.
Moose bit my sister opportunity ping
I wonder if the moose smokes?
"Are they going to fire people who drink too much? Are overweight? Eat too much junk food? Race motorcycles on the weekend?"
Yes, this has all either happened or will happen in the Orwellian world that has arrived.
And those freepers defending this policy...you will be next....hmmmm....fired for being a republican....hey its the right of the business to do that...isn't it?
Sounds to me like they owe her a day's pay and they need to change the interview process, that's all.
Hope she sues the company into bankruptsy.
What about a person with a history of STDs? All they have to do is claim to be gay?
Dirty bustards!
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?
Once upon a time, teachers were asked if they smoked or drank. If they did, they were not hired. If they were caught doing either, they were fired. Harsh, but those were terms of employment.
Yes, it is Orwellian. Up is down, right is wrong, black is white.
Well, nice to see that you don't believe in conservatism, rather you love big government.
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.
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.