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

[Arkinsaw]

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

Anything they deem might someday affect your insurance payout would be fair game to prohibit in off hours. In fact, sitting around in a chair typing in a web forum in your private time and not exercising instead would be one. I suppose you will need to install a monitor on your CPU or your chair or body to see how long you spend sedentary during your off hours.

It is a short step from prohibiting behavior on the basis of healthcare costs...to requiring behavior on the basis of healthcare costs.

[NEPA]

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

Companies change their own rules all the time.

I was once covered by Scotts benefits but they changed my status from permanent to temporary and then to seasonal and decided I'm no longer covered.

It sucks but it's legal.

[IronJack]

Dear Scott's:

I regret to inform you that in a recent urinalysis, you tested positive for tyrannium. You may know that this substance, from the same family as liberalaine and Pelosium, causes the user to feel as though he has the right to force his values on others. In keeping with our company policy, as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, your employment is terminated forthwith.

In other words, Scott's: you're fired.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

...discriminating against someone for smoking at home is crazy.

Yes it is. But it's not illegal for a private company to do it.

[diefree]

I smoke and I'm almost never sick. Same goes for my husband.

[razorback-bert]

I bet everyone that works there feels really good about themselves, being a better class of citizens and all.

[highimpact]

Yes it is. But it's not illegal for a private company to do it.

I'm a smoker and an employer. I'm going to side with Scott's on this. If that's their policy, then it was legal discrimination since smokers don't fall into a protected class. I can discriminate against people who shave, people who don't shave, people who are bald, people who have long hair, people who wear jewelry, people who wash with Dial soap, people who think Hillary Clinton is hot, etc. As long as I don't discriminate based on age, gender, race, national origin, religion, Vietnam vet status, disability, or sexual orientation (certain states), then it's my right as a private employer to make that call. If you don't like it, find another job.

[traditional1]

"No mention that non-smokers and other healthy people have to pay higher insurance premiums at work for people like Rodrigues who smoke"

Great argument you have there...

Now, you wanna increase premiums on women of child-bearing age, too, as they are a burden on my insurance premiums, too, and so are all the fat-ass Smoke-Nazi's who are trying to save me from demon tobacco.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

If you don't like it, find another job.

Yeppers. Spot on.

[battletank]

Makes me doubly glad I fired them this summer for complete incompetence. They keep calling me begging me to come back even after repeatedly telling them I would never have anything to do with them again. Next time they come begging, I'll hit them with this too. Nazi's.

[traditional1]

"If that's their policy, then it was legal discrimination since smokers don't fall into a protected class. "

Okay, let's follow that logic...non-protected "classes"...how about if I refuse to hire anyone who DOESN'T smoke? You think that stands a snowball's chance in hell of standing up in court????

[Freedom4US]

Call it a preference, they *hate* that, because it implies that people have a choice. There is no free will in their weltanschaung, apparently.

[elcid1970]

"In the future..."

You will be regularly tested for BMI. Anyone with more than 5% body fat has one year to get down to 150 pounds or less. The negative effects of obesity should be obvious to everyone.

You will be required to take the Army physical fitness test twice a year (heck, I am, and I'm in the reserves). Any reasonably fit man or woman should be able to perform the requisite number of pushups and situps, as well as score well on the two mile run.

You will be required to install a company-provided flatscreen telescreen in your home, facing the refrigerator and the location where you perform your morning calisthenics under company supervision.....

...Gee I could just go on and on.

[Freedom4US]

Don't look for any consistency or rationality, they know what's best for all of us.

[Mister Da]

I live & work in an at-will employment state. I attended a seminar conducted by a lawyer specializing in employment cases.

He said NEVER give a reason for termination, because that reason can be used against you in court. While it is not illegal to fire someone, the reasons you give could be.

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

Also, I don't like the company's use of health insurance as a bludgeon to socially & physically engineer (manipulate) their employees. Health insurance should not be available thru employment. It should be sold ONLY to individuals/families like auto or life insurance. This would put an end to this nonsense.

Short of that, the fired employees should retaliate by pointing out the numerous & ongoing violations of safety & health regulations at the company. As with most companies, the list will be long. What goes around, comes around.

[traditional1]

"Don't look for any consistency or rationality"

Yeah, silly me.....

The Fatwah issued by the Smoke Nazi's doesn't bode well for Smoker's Rights, I guess.....

[trumandogz]

Please point out to me where in Federal Law homosexuals are extended Civil Rights protections.

[highimpact]

Okay, let's follow that logic...non-protected "classes"...how about if I refuse to hire anyone who DOESN'T smoke? You think that stands a snowball's chance in hell of standing up in court????

Yes, that will stand up in court. Show me the legislation or the common law that prevents me from making that decision, and I'll admit I'm wrong. I can choose to hire ONLY redheads. That's my perrogative and my right. I can choose to hire people who admit to smoking pot within the last 10 years, and reject applicants who have never smoked pot. That's my right and my perrogative. I can choose to hire people who speak in a falsetto voice, and I can reject people who speak in a baritone voice. That's my right and my perrogative. You might not like it, but that's the way it is. If you don't like it, start your own company and make your own rules.

[unixfox]

So, on the same premise as firing a smoker....shouldn't it be legal to fire someone who is HIV-positive?

Or is too fat, skinny, long nose, pimples on their ass, or anything THEY deem not worthy.

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

[traditional1]

"You will be required to install a company-provided flatscreen telescreen in your home, facing the refrigerator"

Oh crap...does that mean I have to take all the chains and padlocks off my refrigerator to mount the flatscreen TV? (remember Dom Deluise from "Fatso"?)