[Millee]

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

[sure_fine]

aah, memories of HS restrooms

[LtKerst]

Boycott dataflow

[Paloma_55]

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 >

[Semper Paratus]

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

[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.

[Go Gordon]

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?

[2banana]

The homosexual lifestyle is much more unhealthy than smoking 10 cigs a day...wonder if a company could do the exact same thing...

[xrp]

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!"

[JimRed]

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.

[Registered]

I hear most smokers can quit anytime they want.

Maybe she should have just quit.

[zzen01]

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.

[VegasCowboy]

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.

[Gingersnap]

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.

[FlyVet]

Are they going to fire people who drink too much? Are overweight? Eat too much junk food? Race motorcycles on the weekend?

[KC_Conspirator]

Now if she were a lesbian providing sex acts during office hours, she would be promoted.

[wideawake]

SACKED smoker Sophie Blinman threatened to take her former employers to court yesterday, fuming: "I'm furious. Surely this is discrimination."

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?

[Reactionary]

The socialist state has certain values, you see. One of them is health. Collectivist healthcare being what it is, the Reich can't afford to employ or treat those who don't contribute to the collective good.

So you're out of luck in Nazi Britian if you happen to smoke. Anal sex is groovy, however.

[rightinthemiddle]

Moose bit my sister opportunity ping

[rightinthemiddle]

I wonder if the moose smokes?

[Old Professer]

Sounds to me like they owe her a day's pay and they need to change the interview process, that's all.