No. They are making everyone take a medical test to SEE if they smoke. Read the article. This is now the 3rd or 4th time you have used a straw man argument in this thread. I sincerely hope that you are not an actual lawyer.
Originally posted by: Uppsala9496
Originally posted by: torpid
Stop quoting the ADA. You are only making yourself look silly.
Nothing shall be construed to preclude the prohibition of = Nothing in the ada chapter prevents you from banning or restricting smoking.
I am wholly against this policy unless the company's employees interact with people who have adverse reactions to smoke on clothing.
You are making me take a medical test because I smoke (that is what the article is about). You are not making anyone else take the test. This is an attempt to discover if I have a medical disability. I can now bring an ADA suit against you. See. Very simple to do. I've seen this type of case before. But, call me silly if you would like. What would I know.....
Originally posted by: Ausm
That is ridiculous! They will be able to sue the company quaranteed!
Ausm
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!
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Make the smokers pay the difference in the premium.
Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
That's how much they made YOU pay. A company doesn't always offload the whole cost onto the employees.Originally posted by: TwiceOver
When I quit my job the only difference in tobacco/non-tobacco insurance through our BCBS provider was $12/mo. These guys could make an initiative to control waste or turn off unused electrical and save more money.
Fvckers.
Originally posted by: Wanescotting
Originally posted by: episodic
Most states have 'at will employment' you can fire a person for any reason at all. Last I checked, smokers are not a federally protected group.
That may be, but people will think twice before they apply for a job with this company. They are going to cut thier nose off to spite thier face...........
Originally posted by: J Heartless Slick
Originally posted by: Ausm
That is ridiculous! They will be able to sue the company quaranteed!
Ausm
Agreed, the courts will decide this issue.
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
The next logical step is to fire employees that have family members under a group insurance policy that smoke.
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
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!
Did you guys actually READ the article? It said they were fired for REFUSING to take a test to determine whether they smoke cigarettes. This is no different than if you are asked to take a test to determine whether you have recently done drugs. Chances are that the policy was clearly defined in their contracts as a term of employment. There is nothing here to make anyone think that this has any illegitimacy to it whatsoever.
Jason
Originally posted by: vi_edit
the medical test part of the ADA says you can't test for disabilities. nowhere does it say smoking is a disablity. i don't know what make you think smoking is a disability?!
Yeh, I'm trying to figure out where he's making that leap too.
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
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!
Did you guys actually READ the article? It said they were fired for REFUSING to take a test to determine whether they smoke cigarettes. This is no different than if you are asked to take a test to determine whether you have recently done drugs. Chances are that the policy was clearly defined in their contracts as a term of employment. There is nothing here to make anyone think that this has any illegitimacy to it whatsoever.
Jason
Do you not understand that drugs are illegal and smoking is LEGAL. It doesnt matter if it was in the employee handbook or if they signed a piece of paper, the employee still has his civil rights. The employeer has no business telling an employee if he can smoke a cig, cigar or pipe on his own time.
Originally posted by: Uppsala9496
Originally posted by: vi_edit
the medical test part of the ADA says you can't test for disabilities. nowhere does it say smoking is a disablity. i don't know what make you think smoking is a disability?!
Yeh, I'm trying to figure out where he's making that leap too.
What I was trying to say is that it is an excuse to look for something else. Say a person has any kind of disability, they can say it is an attempt to discover whatever it is.
Constructive discharge would be another claim that can be made.
Regardless of what claim is made, this will result in a lawsuit. I have no idea what the courts would decide, however, this is going to cost the company a lot of money in defense costs alone.
Originally posted by: Citrix
how am I wrong?
Originally posted by: KK
Link to article on banning cops from tobacco use.
"I'm not going to be out smoke-testing them or anything,"
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.
Originally posted by: Nitemare
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.
Eating junk food is a choice.
Not exercising is a choice.
Paying for sexual services is a choice.
Engaging in extreme sports is a choice.
Riding a motorcycle is a choice.
<----Non-smoker, but smoked for 12 years
I'd halfway consider this if they could pass a hygiene bill that made it illegal to go out in public smelling like some people do. Cigarette smoke does not bother me nowhere near as much as someone who has never heard of deoderant or soap.
I'd rather have a smoker working for me than someone who is a couple hundred pounds overweight who could drop dead at anytime due to a heart attack.
Originally posted by: Hammer
Originally posted by: Citrix
how am I wrong?
scroll up, and read the link i posted. its ok in plenty of states.
Several of the state laws that prohibit discrimination against smoking employees do not apply if not smoking is truly a part and parcel of the job. The exception is written into the laws in a number of states -- including Minnesota, Montana, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, South Dakota, Wisconsin and Wyoming. In these states it is likely, for example, that a worker in the front office of the American Cancer Society -- a group outspoken in its disdain of tobacco -- could be fired for lighting up on the job
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: Hammer
Originally posted by: Citrix
how am I wrong?
scroll up, and read the link i posted. its ok in plenty of states.
Ok i read it and you missed the last sentence
Several of the state laws that prohibit discrimination against smoking employees do not apply if not smoking is truly a part and parcel of the job. The exception is written into the laws in a number of states -- including Minnesota, Montana, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, South Dakota, Wisconsin and Wyoming. In these states it is likely, for example, that a worker in the front office of the American Cancer Society -- a group outspoken in its disdain of tobacco -- could be fired for lighting up on the job
On the job is whole lot different than your home, your car, walking down the street.... Still clearly a civil rights issue.
Originally posted by: Nitemare
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.
Eating junk food is a choice.
Not exercising is a choice.
Paying for sexual services is a choice.
Engaging in extreme sports is a choice.
Riding a motorcycle is a choice.
<----Non-smoker, but smoked for 12 years
I'd halfway consider this if they could pass a hygiene bill that made it illegal to go out in public smelling like some people do. Cigarette smoke does not bother me nowhere near as much as someone who has never heard of deoderant or soap.
I'd rather have a smoker working for me than someone who is a couple hundred pounds overweight who could drop dead at anytime due to a heart attack.
Originally posted by: Citrix
On the job is whole lot different than your home, your car, walking down the street and being forced by threat of termination by your employeer to take a test to determine if you smoke which is totally legal activity.... Still clearly a civil rights issue.
Originally posted by: Hammer
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: Hammer
Originally posted by: Citrix
how am I wrong?
scroll up, and read the link i posted. its ok in plenty of states.
Ok i read it and you missed the last sentence
Several of the state laws that prohibit discrimination against smoking employees do not apply if not smoking is truly a part and parcel of the job. The exception is written into the laws in a number of states -- including Minnesota, Montana, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, South Dakota, Wisconsin and Wyoming. In these states it is likely, for example, that a worker in the front office of the American Cancer Society -- a group outspoken in its disdain of tobacco -- could be fired for lighting up on the job
On the job is whole lot different than your home, your car, walking down the street.... Still clearly a civil rights issue.
civil rights issue implys federal protection. but there is no federal protection for smoking.
Originally posted by: Citrix
can you say, Life, Liberty and the prusuit of happiness? Yes there is federal protection because it is a LEGAL Activity!! Until the Feds make nicciotene a controlled substance, NOBODY has a right to tell a smoker he or she can not smoke in thier own home, car, or public establishment (that allows it of course).
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: Hammer
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: Hammer
Originally posted by: Citrix
how am I wrong?
scroll up, and read the link i posted. its ok in plenty of states.
Ok i read it and you missed the last sentence
Several of the state laws that prohibit discrimination against smoking employees do not apply if not smoking is truly a part and parcel of the job. The exception is written into the laws in a number of states -- including Minnesota, Montana, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, South Dakota, Wisconsin and Wyoming. In these states it is likely, for example, that a worker in the front office of the American Cancer Society -- a group outspoken in its disdain of tobacco -- could be fired for lighting up on the job
On the job is whole lot different than your home, your car, walking down the street.... Still clearly a civil rights issue.
civil rights issue implys federal protection. but there is no federal protection for smoking.
can you say, Life, Liberty and the prusuit of happiness? Yes there is federal protection because it is a LEGAL Activity!! Until the Feds make nicciotene a controlled substance, NOBODY has a right to tell a smoker he or she can not smoke in thier own home, car, or public establishment (that allows it of course).