Mass. smoker sues over firing

Boston.com ^ | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 | Sacha Pfeiffer

[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

[saganite]

I like your last suggestion best. Don't know why. It just strikes me as a good reason to terminate employment.

[magslinger]

I do, too. But just try it. :(

[Commiewatcher]

"Scott's Lawn Products...........

Way overrated, way overpriced.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

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.

The question is whether they are right to change the rules after hiring you.

If they wanted to have it be that anyone they hired was a non-smoker and agreed not to take up smoking as long as they worked for the company well and good. But changing the rules and making them retroactive is a little dicier.

For example it is a condition of employment at my company that all new hires must have a High School Diploma or a GED.

We have a whole slew of old timers who have neither.

Would it be just for us to demand that they go back to school and get their GED or be fired?

It might be legal. But I don't think that it would be right. And companies should be seen doing what is right. It is just good business.

[Fierce Allegiance]

This has nothing to do with the State, it's a private employers policy.

[Mariner]

So, was this guy (and yourself) subject to random urinalysis to determine if you've been smoking? Did the entire workforce agree to that, or did Scotts say they'd just do it?

[mysterio]

Yeah, I'm sure the employees are just saving oodles on their health insurance premiums. The companies alwyas just pocket the cash. Just like when they started tossing peoples' cars for seatbelt violations. Premiums still went up.

I don't care if this guy wins or loses. I just hope he ties them up in court for a long time and they have to pay tons for lawyers.

[Fierce Allegiance]

but it does bother me a bit. And I don't smoke

YEA! Someone who gets it! The Smoke-Nazi's are gonna be pissed when other rights get trampled.

[NEPA]

As I said I don't agree with the policy but it is a private company. They have a responsibility to the shareholders to hold down costs and maximize profits. The policy is all about the bottom line.

The year 2000 was a transition year in which Scotts, Miracle Gro, Ortho, and Round Up merged following buy outs in the 90's. It wasn't a very good year and in late 2000 there was a complete restructuring and the company, under Hagedorn, seemed to become much more frugal where employee costs were concerned (I was terminated, rehired with no benefits and can't get them back because I get laid off for a few weeks which makes me a seasonal employee). There's also a lot more job stress and pressure to be competitive not just in the marketplace but with other employees.

This is where the smoking policy comes in. In my opinion it's a Hagedorn thing about money and competition and his desire to present some kind of ideal picture of the company. I wouldn't be surprised if the next target will be overweight employees if he can show overweight employees cost the company more money in health or other costs.

I liked the company a lot better before Hagedorn but the shareholders probably love him.

[Gene Eric]

>> they should be able to hire and fire anyone they want to within reason.

This appears to an egregious violation of his rights especially if the plaintiff is not in violation of any law. The Scotts Company should get hammered on this. I find your interpretation of 'within reason' to be whimsical.

Do you feel it's justifiable to test for AIDS? What's your opinion on traces of other carcinogens such as those found in paint thinners, or other household solvents and materials. Did you ever consider second hand smoke as a factor?

[Fierce Allegiance]

Send 'em a note:

http://www.scotts.com/index.cfm/event/ContactUs.showForm/cid/36312464-65BF-F00F-13C8-7D2A78ED8B99/tkn/70217212

[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.

ANY voluntary behaviour could (and would, ultimately) become grounds for dismissal if this lot go on unchecked.

[EagleUSA]

This has nothing to do with the State, it's a private employers policy.
------
It would not be happening in a company in Montana ---- :-)

[Normal4me]

Within reason huh? How much do you like your job and at what point would YOU draw the line?

[Fierce Allegiance]

Not completely true, sexual orientation, a choice, is a protected status.

[Fierce Allegiance]

If a Scott's employee in Montana pisses positive, it will. Sorry.

The company is out of Ohio, as I'm sure you read. Their policy is nationwide.

[Leo Farnsworth]

I like fish...

[Fierce Allegiance]

Yum.

[Arkinsaw]

In the future:
No drinking alcohol off the job or fired. Drinking alcohol is notoriously bad for your health, it gets others killed if you drive with it, its addictive to some, it affects you the day after during the work day, its just bad. So its legitimate to fire someone for doing that off duty.

Its usually gun owners who go postal and shoot up fellow workers. So its legitimate to not allow employees access to guns in their private lives. Not all gun owners go postal, but most people who go postal are gun owners...even if for a short time.

Meat is known to cause cancer, is fatty, generally not good for you. Raises health costs. Its legitimate to require workers not to eat meat, or to at least eat it only one day per week. Failure to adhere is a legitimate reason to terminate employment.

There are many things people do in their private lives that can effect on-job performance or have secondary effects on the job. For instance, dangerous skydiving, motor-cycling, Civil War reenacting, harboring dangerous things like dogs, or rock climbing can cause disruption of both you and your fellow employees if a funeral becomes necessary.

To be safe, you will find in your employee a manual a list of private off-work activities that are allowed by the company. It is easier to list those allowed than those that are not.

If you agree, sign your manual and return to human resources. If you do not, please find work at one of the three or four other companies that have not adopted this policy.

[NEPA]

The testing wasn't random. (BTW I'm not covered by Scotts insurance so I'm not subject to the policy.) Employee's had 1 year notice and the offer to pay for any stop smoking program they wanted.

Chances are if they run it like the drug testing, people won't be tested again unless they're off work for a couple months and then come back.

If this guy was smart he would have quit a few weeks before testing and probably would have been home free for the duration of his employment.