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

[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.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

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.

Don't fall for it.

What about the ones that don't brush their teeth, or don't get their shots, or go sky diving, or, or, or...

Smoking is always a choice, obesity is not.

Sex is life. STDs are a risk, but so is driving. Play it safe and you reduce that risk. You can't "safely" smoke.

Obesity not a choice? How the F did you come up with that one? The percentage of the obese population who is actually obese due to no fault of their own, is probably 0.01% (some sort of hormonal imbalance or something like that). Insignificant. All the rest, being obese is just as much of a choice as being a smoker.

 

[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.

 

[Wanescotting]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: SagaLore

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.

Don't fall for it.

What about the ones that don't brush their teeth, or don't get their shots, or go sky diving, or, or, or...

Smoking is always a choice, obesity is not.

Sex is life. STDs are a risk, but so is driving. Play it safe and you reduce that risk. You can't "safely" smoke.

Obesity not a choice? How the F did you come up with that one? The percentage of the obese population who is actually obese due to no fault of their own, is probably 0.01% (some sort of hormonal imbalance or something like that). Insignificant. All the rest, being obese is just as much of a choice as being a smoker.

Ah the age old problem. What you know, and what you can prove.................

 

[Wanescotting]

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.

Does smoking affect their ability to do their job? No.
Does race affect ones ability to do ones job? No.

 

[Vette73]

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.

And there is no law that says firing someone that smokes is discriminatory.

Also for all you "law buffs" the MAJORITY of lawsuits lose, the few you hear about on the news having some large winning is either lost on appeal or is reduced so much it does not make the news anymore. Yes these peopel can sue, but they will lose.

With health care cost soaring, thanks HMO's/Insurance/Drug Makers/etc.., you are going to see less flat health coverage and more coverage based on your health and lifestyle choices. Which is good for me and other heatly people that have been paying the cost of others that make THEIR lifestyle choices.

 

[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.

 

[Amused]

A private business owner should be able to hire and fire anyone they please for any reason they please.

Just as a private busniess owner should be able to allow, or ban smoking on their property, if they please.

 

[Uppsala9496]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

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.

And there is no law that says firing someone that smokes is discriminatory.

Also for all you "law buffs" the MAJORITY of lawsuits lose, the few you hear about on the news having some large winning is either lost on appeal or is reduced so much it does not make the news anymore. Yes these peopel can sue, but they will lose.

With health care cost soaring, thanks HMO's/Insurance/Drug Makers/etc.., you are going to see less flat health coverage and more coverage based on your health and lifestyle choices. Which is good for me and other heatly people that have been paying the cost of others that make THEIR lifestyle choices.

Actually, there is a law that states firing someone for smoking allows them to bring suit. ADA 1990.
And no, I am not a law buff. I do happen to work for an employment practices liability insurance company. I see these type of lawsuits ALL DAY LONG. I am very familiar with the number of suits that win and lose, since my company is the one that pays when an employer loses.

 

[Uppsala9496]

Originally posted by: Amused
A private business owner should be able to hire and fire anyone they please for any reason they please.

Just as a private busniess owner should be able to allow, or ban smoking on their property, if they please.

So, as a private business owner, I can fire you because I don't like the way you look, your skin color, your sex, your sexual orientation, etc.? Remember there are more private business' than there are public. This isn't the 1920's.

 

[FoBoT]

they want to save money on health insurance, but this is probably not the right thing to do

who is next, donut eaters? big mac fans?

will i have to exercise at work like they do in japan?

 

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

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.

And there is no law that says firing someone that smokes is discriminatory.

Also for all you "law buffs" the MAJORITY of lawsuits lose, the few you hear about on the news having some large winning is either lost on appeal or is reduced so much it does not make the news anymore. Yes these peopel can sue, but they will lose.

With health care cost soaring, thanks HMO's/Insurance/Drug Makers/etc.., you are going to see less flat health coverage and more coverage based on your health and lifestyle choices. Which is good for me and other heatly people that have been paying the cost of others that make THEIR lifestyle choices.

Still waiting for you to back up your claim of a woman being fired over makeup.

A private business owner should be able to hire and fire anyone they please for any reason they please.

Just as a private busniess owner should be able to allow, or ban smoking on their property, if they please.

I think this is a publically traded company.
I support your ideal of a business owner being able to hire and fire as they please, but only as it pertains to activities that take place AT the workplace.

 

[KK]

Should you have to disclose whether you smoke or not for insurance policies? If so, why? Isn't that discrimination basically the same as to what this employer is doing.

Wasn't there a case of police officers being fired for smoking on their own personal time? Believe it was somewhere up in the new england states.

 

[KoolAidKid]

The fact is that health insurance premiums are higher for smokers. If you are a smoker you will cost the company more $$ in insurance costs. I see no problem in passing this cost on to the employee. Firing them seems uncalled for, however. If the smoker refuses to pay the additional insurance premium I could see firing them, but not otherwise.

Originally posted by: SampSon

This will go to court regardless if the company is in an 'at-will' state or not. I believe that the only way the company can backup it's decision is to have a mandatory phyical done by doctors on every single employee. Thoes who pass, keep their job, thoes who fail do not.

A mandatory physical would be fair. However, health insurance premiums are usually not contingent upon the ability of the employee to pass a physical. If the company wants to use higher insurance premiums as the justification for its actions it should take action against employees strictly based upon factors that will directly increase insurance costs.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Make the smokers pay the difference in the premium.

Must be a small company. I've never seen a group insurance policy that asks new employees if they smoke or not. Either that or it's a new thing with the insurance company.

Regardless, in my experience with a company that employed 300+ people, the smokers are the least productive.
They take multiple breaks every day. They have to start/stop their jobs, so they had to sort of wrap up what they were doing, go on break, come back and get started again.
With many jobs this is just plain inefficient, because how many people simply put out their cigarette, put their head down, and walk right back to their job? Not many. They'll have a conversation going with someone, and walk in with that person, finish the conversation while they're sort of getting back to work. Wastes lots of time, is the bottom line.

And the bad part was, if a non-smoker did the same thing, they'd be canned for goofing off eventually.

If a company doesn't have to hire a drug user or a drinker, they don't have to hire a smoker, either.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SampSon

A private business owner should be able to hire and fire anyone they please for any reason they please.

Just as a private busniess owner should be able to allow, or ban smoking on their property, if they please.

I think this is a publically traded company.
I support your ideal of a business owner being able to hire and fire as they please, but only as it pertains to activities that take place AT the workplace.

I mean "private" as in non-government. A publically traded company is still "private."

 

[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

 

[Arkitech]

Personally I think it should be illegal to fire anyone for activities they engage in on their personal time, legal or otherwise.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SampSon
Still waiting for you to back up your claim of a woman being fired over makeup.

There was a whole thread on this.

http://www.indybay.org/archive...id=2774&category_id=12

 

[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,

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Uppsala9496

Originally posted by: Amused
A private business owner should be able to hire and fire anyone they please for any reason they please.

Just as a private busniess owner should be able to allow, or ban smoking on their property, if they please.

So, as a private business owner, I can fire you because I don't like the way you look, your skin color, your sex, your sexual orientation, etc.? Remember there are more private business' than there are public. This isn't the 1920's.

Yes. Why would you want to work for someone who doesn't like the way you look, your skin color, your sex, your sexual orientation, etc.?

Passing laws against discrimination doesn't accomplish anything. Only changing hearts and minds does that. Laws simply cause tokenism, not change.

 

[Aharami]

i agree that the company is wrong to fire the smokers. what if some of the smokers are some of the best employees of the company? Its gonna cost the company a lot more money to hire non-smokers in their place and train them.. Also...this will definitely go to court and I can see the company losing. Its a very bad move on their part IMO.

 

[Pacfanweb]

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!

I"m pretty sure that you are wrong. There's nothing there for a lawsuit. IMO, they are getting rid of smokers to hold off FUTURE health costs, not immediate premium costs.
I've never seen a group policy that checked to see if individuals smoked or not. But anybody knows that if you have a bunch of long-term employees who smoke, there will eventually be some big dollars spent on some of those people's medical needs.
I think they are just off-loading that future burden now. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
No different than getting rid of the heavy drinkers and drug users.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Aharami
i agree that the company is wrong to fire the smokers. what if some of the smokers are some of the best employees of the company? Its gonna cost the company a lot more money to hire non-smokers in their place and train them.. Also...this will definitely go to court and I can see the company losing. Its a very bad move on their part IMO.

Um, do you think they might have considered that already?

They only fired 4 people.

BTW, did anyone notice that this is a health insurance company? So they absolutely know what those smokers are going to cost them in the long run. Good move, I'd say.

 

[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?