Company is firing all of its smokers - whether they smoke at work or not

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: Uppsala9496
This has class action lawsuit written all over it. You CAN NOT discriminate against someone for health reasons at a job unless the health issue prevents them from performing the job. So, terminating someone because they smoke and saying it has to do with higher health costs is illegal.

The thing is that we already allow companies to hire and fire people over straight-up drug use, so this is only a very minor extension of that by moving from illegal drugs to something slightly more legal(but still about as dangerous). If it goes to court, I don't see it being an open-and-shut case at all.

i dunno, drugs are illegal and cigarettes are legal. i think that isn't gonna to be considered a minor extension. and the judge presiding over the case will probably be a smoker.

 

[Uppsala9496]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: Uppsala9496
This has class action lawsuit written all over it. You CAN NOT discriminate against someone for health reasons at a job unless the health issue prevents them from performing the job. So, terminating someone because they smoke and saying it has to do with higher health costs is illegal.

The thing is that we already allow companies to hire and fire people over straight-up drug use, so this is only a very minor extension of that by moving from illegal drugs to something slightly more legal(but still about as dangerous). If it goes to court, I don't see it being an open-and-shut case at all.

None of us have any idea how the court would decide. However, defense costs alone are going to make this a very expensive case for the company. It is going to cost them a lot more than the associated health costs of employing smokers. I guess the good thing for the company is that they are in MI, and not CA.

 

[Wanescotting]

This company is headed for a disaster IMHO. You cannot get the cream of the crop employees when you start doing things like this. The question they should ask themselves is "are these smokers key employees". How much will it cost them to train new employees to take the place of the employees they fired(10% BTW)?



Whoever is running this business is short sighted and lacks vision. Would you work for an employer of this ilk?

 

[Uppsala9496]

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].

This opens the door for them to bring suit. So, it is going to cost the company money to defend, and most likely is going to turn into a class action suit. It is going to be expensive for them....

 

[Wanescotting]

Originally posted by: Uppsala9496
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].

This opens the door for them to bring suit. So, it is going to cost the company money to defend, and most likely is going to turn into a class action suit. It is going to be expensive for them....

:thumbsup:

Yep. Looks like the top brass made an uninformed decision..........

 

[Ketteringo]

Originally posted by: EyeMWing

Originally posted by: Wanescotting
So what about the employees that engage in unprotected sex? What about the employees that are obese?



Where would it stop?

I was on the fence - you made up my mind. :beer:2u.

Wrap it up, don't be a fattie, and don't smoke.

 

[Wanescotting]

Originally posted by: Ketteringo

Originally posted by: EyeMWing

Originally posted by: Wanescotting
So what about the employees that engage in unprotected sex? What about the employees that are obese?



Where would it stop?

I was on the fence - you made up my mind. :beer:2u.

Wrap it up, don't be a fattie, and don't smoke.

Um, what? You do not understand.

Employers cannot and should not impose these restrictions on employees. IF THEY DO, THEY WILL BE SHORT STAFFED VERY QUICKLY!

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: Uppsala9496
This has class action lawsuit written all over it. You CAN NOT discriminate against someone for health reasons at a job unless the health issue prevents them from performing the job. So, terminating someone because they smoke and saying it has to do with higher health costs is illegal.
Sorry, have to fire you because you just came down with breast cancer and we can't afford the associated health costs. Yep, your fired too since you have a family history of heart disease. And you. You are fired because you just had a premature baby and that is going to cost us $100,000. Oh, and all you women are fired because you too might get pregnant and have premy babies.........
And no, I am not a smoker. Personally I find it revolting, but to blatantly discriminate against a class of people like that is beyond illegal. "At will" state or not!

Exactly. Personally I don't care if people smoke, and I don't agree with their rights to do so being continually eroded. But you've pointed out a larger issue that could affect the rest of us. 3 people in my mother's family (including her) died of cancer. I'd say I'm at risk. Why should the rest of you pay to heal me? How about I ride a motorcycle. Should I be fired? The odds of me getting injured in an accident are much higher than if I were in a car. Well, what if I drove a POS econobox from 1983 with a 1 star safety rating? Should they drop my healthcare as well? Odds are I wouldn't do well in a collision with an SUV. What if I skied? Or rock climbed? Or played ice hockey? It's a difference of degrees, but it's the same philosophy: engage in an activity that could potentially hurt you, and we'll drop your health coverage. Where do you draw the line?

 

[Wanescotting]

I ride a motorcycle. Should I be fired?

Ha, I was thinking of using that as an example.

 

[Mucho]

I dont smoke however, thats Nazism.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: episodic
As a company owner, should he not have the right to say that we are not going to pay the higher health care costs associated with those who smoke?

Then they should fire all the people that eat at mcdonalds. Or even anyone that eats refined sugar and flour for that matter. The cost of diabetes can get pretty high.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Mucho
I dont smoke however, thats Nazism.

Go back and read your history books before you make a ridiculous statement like that.

 

[Cuda1447]

This is a tough one. I can understand where the employee is coming from on this one, but at the same time it is wrong to discriminate against an entire group of people like that.


I feel that the disease argument is invalid though. Smoking is a choice, often times an illness is nothing that you can easily control or prevent. But I dunno, I see a lawsuit coming for sure.

 

[Kelemvor]

Huge lawsuits on the way. Can't fire someone for doing something that isn't illegal especially when they do it on their own time. It's illegal.

 

[Uppsala9496]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
This is a tough one. I can understand where the employee is coming from on this one, but at the same time it is wrong to discriminate against an entire group of people like that.


I feel that the disease argument is invalid though. Smoking is a choice, often times an illness is nothing that you can easily control or prevent. But I dunno, I see a lawsuit coming for sure.

Conversly, people can argue it is an addiction, and addictions are considered diseases.....Alcoholism is a disease, but do you drink by choice, or addiction?

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: FrankyJunior
Huge lawsuits on the way. Can't fire someone for doing something that isn't illegal especially when they do it on their own time. It's illegal.

It's not illegal if the employer is located in an 'at-will' state. People can be fired for any reason.

If a lawsuit is started, it will be interesting to see the arguments from the employer's side. Especially if they show numbers on how much it costs them to employ smokers over non-smokers.

 

[Cuda1447]

Originally posted by: Uppsala9496

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
This is a tough one. I can understand where the employee is coming from on this one, but at the same time it is wrong to discriminate against an entire group of people like that.


I feel that the disease argument is invalid though. Smoking is a choice, often times an illness is nothing that you can easily control or prevent. But I dunno, I see a lawsuit coming for sure.

Conversly, people can argue it is an addiction, and addictions are considered diseases.....Alcoholism is a disease, but do you drink by choice, or addiction?

You can argue that and you may win, but thats a BS argument in my opinion

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: FrankyJunior
Huge lawsuits on the way. Can't fire someone for doing something that isn't illegal especially when they do it on their own time. It's illegal.

WRONG. Women were fired for not wearing mackup, they lost their case. People can quit for any reason and employers can fire you for just about anything, as long as it is not protected by state law or equal rights federal and of course the admendments to it like sex, race, religion, etc....

Originally posted by: dabuddha
Good for them. I think it's a great idea. But to keep the whiners at bay, perhaps they should tell the employees that if they are smokers, they will not get health care benefits or they will but with a much higher premium.

Yep I agree. Why should I, and other healthy people, have to pay more for those that live lifestyles like that.

 

[Rogue]

They would get much better results by paying for those people to quit smoking and set a timeline for their success in that area. If they fail to stop smoking after the company has paid for their smoking cessation program, they should be billed a higher rate of health insurance as a result. Anyone see a problem with that solution?

 

[PTCvette]

The city my office is in recently passed a law saying you can't smoke inside public buildings (unless it is a bar and nobody under 21 is allowed in) and when you go outside to smoke you have to be 10 feet away from the building... I guess that's a heck of a lot better than losing my job for smoking!

-J

 

[b0mbrman]

I've never smoked but I think that this is ridiculous even if I couldn't care less about the smokers' rights being violated .

I'm not into it because the company is going to be worse off because of it in a financiala sense

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Rogue
They would get much better results by paying for those people to quit smoking and set a timeline for their success in that area. If they fail to stop smoking after the company has paid for their smoking cessation program, they should be billed a higher rate of health insurance as a result. Anyone see a problem with that solution?

PAID??!!!>??? Why. Its THEIR lifestyle choice, they were not born that way. Its simple, quit smoking or work somewhere else. period.


I think peopel should have to pay THEIR fair share of the fees. If you smoke, drink a lot, eat fast food more then a certain amount, etc... that goes towards YOUR rate. To many people pay for the lazy unhealty lifestyles of others. Their choice, their bill.

 

[davew0670]

what about the obese overweight fat slobs that sit there and drink cokes,eat twinkies, cake and ice cream when they get off work? Fire them too, they are more of a health risk than smokers. Hope this company goes under.

 

[SagaLore]

I think it's a great precedent.

 

[Uppsala9496]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: FrankyJunior
Huge lawsuits on the way. Can't fire someone for doing something that isn't illegal especially when they do it on their own time. It's illegal.

It's not illegal if the employer is located in an 'at-will' state. People can be fired for any reason.

If a lawsuit is started, it will be interesting to see the arguments from the employer's side. Especially if they show numbers on how much it costs them to employ smokers over non-smokers.

The whole "At Will" thing is crap. Trust me. I've seen soooo many wrongful termination/discrimination suits in "at will" states where there was in fact no merit for the lawsuit. Yet, these people most of the time walk away with something, even if it is a nuisance settlement in order for the company to curb defense costs.
Take a look at my previous post concerning the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.