Originally posted by: Uppsala9496
Notice the point that the senior member from Jackson Lewis brought up? ADA. But then again, what do I know...........Originally posted by: Hammer
Originally posted by: Uppsala9496
Originally posted by: Hammer
Originally posted by: Uppsala9496
Originally posted by: Slvrtg277
Originally posted by: Uppsala9496
Originally posted by: Slvrtg277
I'm not sure what to think about this one. I know that a "right-to-hire" state can fire an employee out of the blue and not have to give a reason for it. I work in such a state. BUT, if I were to get fired, I would have to try to prove that they fired me illegally somehow (race, etc.).
This company isn't firing employees with no reason given. They are blatantly giving the reason as a perfectly legal activity that these people engage in outside of the workplace. That being the case, maybe these employees DO have a case.
BTW - I am not a smoker and I am the first to complain about people smoking right outside the doors of any building where I have to walk through it to get in or out. I hate it. But damn...this kind of discrimination just doesn't seem right.
Right to hire/at will.....all the terminated employee has to say is wrongful termination. If they are over 40, they can make an ADA related claim. Of non-caucasian heritage, national origin, race claim. Non-male, sex claim. There are a variey of claims the terminated can make regardless of an at will state. Right to hire/at will states are not allowed to terminate someone for discriminatory reasons. That is illegal.
Yes I know. The point that I'm on the fence about though is whether or not it would be discriminatory to fire someone because they smoke. All of those discriminatory claims are based on things which the employee has no control over. Smoking doesn't necessarily fall into this category, like race, sex, age, handicap, etc.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(b) Relationship to other laws. - Nothing in this chapter shall be
construed to invalidate or limit the remedies, rights, and procedures of
any Federal law or law of any State or political subdivision of any State
or jurisdiction that provides greater or equal protection for the rights
of individuals with disabilities than are afforded by this chapter.
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to preclude the prohibition of,
or the imposition of restrictions on, smoking in places of employment
covered by subchapter I of this chapter [title I], in
transportation covered by subchapter II or III of this chapter [title
II or III], or in places of public accommodation covered by subchapter
III of this chapter [title III].
So, as you can see, they can in fact bring suit under the ADA 1990. It is enough for them to be able to bring suit. I'm not saying they will won or not, but they can bring suit.
the ADA doesn't apply. all that's saying is that the restrictions on drugs and other controlled substances referenced in title I don't apply to smoking. it doesn't say smoking is a disability.
this firing is perfectly acceptable in certain states. i'm not familiar with michigan state law which is the only law that applies in this case
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to preclude the prohibition of,
or the imposition of restrictions on, smoking in places of employment
covered by subchapter I of this chapter [title I], in
transportation covered by subchapter II or III of this chapter [title
II or III], or in places of public accommodation covered by subchapter
III of this chapter [title III].
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to preclude the prohibition of,
did you read title I?
Notice how everyone else in the article thought it was legal and the case with the 10th Circuit of Appeals was the same I referenced? But then again, what do I know.........