Employee Legal Issue
This week we are discussing employee legal issues. A current issue involves whether employers can refuse to hire smokers in order to save on insurance costs. Several companies have issued such restrictions and have been successful on lawsuits by employees who are smokers.
Atlantic Beach, FL (near Jacksonville) recently instituted a ban on hiring smokers. The city has implemented a policy that says it won't hire anyone who uses tobacco products or tests positive for nicotine.
"The policy, which became effective Feb.1, aims to create a healthier workforce which could boost productivity, reduce sick time and control health insurance inflation, said George Foster, the city's human resource manager. The policy does not affect current workers." (Karkaria, March 1, 2006).
Should an organization be allowed to have such restrictions on hiring employees to save money on insurance costs ie. is this legal discrimination? Why or why not? Note: Please remember that some of your classmates may be smokers, so be sensitive and kind in your remarks.
Karkaria, Urvaksh. Atlantic Beach Imposes Employee Smoking Ban. Jacksonville Times-Union, March 1, 2006.
Natty,
No, I think Organizations should not have such restrictions when hiring employees. However, the other face of the coin is that by them doing so they get to save a lot of money in Insurance cost which at the end becomes net profit to the Organization. I know companies need to advocate wellness and importance of being healthy. However, this type of decisions can significantly affect workers in the area of being able to find a job to provide for themselves or their families causing a major impact on the overall economy. If people can’t get a job due to the fact that they smoke, they cannot buy things, they can’t spend money. This can slow the economy and can make an impact on Country’s Capital and spending Budget, and the way money moves with in the Country.
The average smoker costs his or her employer $2,500 to $4,000 more each year in health care costs, compared with a nonsmoker, said Cathy Taylor, assistant health commissioner for the Tennessee Department of Health.
Nationally, smoking is responsible for an estimated $96 billion in direct medical costs and $97 billion in lost productivity annually, according to estimates from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (http://www.timesfreepress.com)
This can be a Legal discrimination. For example, such discrimination occurs when the effect of the company’s policy or rule appears on its face to be impartial, falls more heavenly on a protected group of workers than other workers. In this case smoker vs. non-smokers which can results in limiting employment opportunities for minorities. This kind of case is called Adverse Impact. In order to make a case for adverse impact It involves the question whether or not a company policy or rule affects protected group adversely to a greater degree than it does other groups; and if so, whether there is a valid reason for employer to have such rule or policy. So, employee needs to show burden of proof and make a prima-facie case of discrimination.
Smokers Need Not apply for a Job Memorial carves out plan to emphasize health focus by Emily Bregel published Monday, January 18th, 2010
http://www.timesfreepress.com
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
A board member for American Express has brought up the fact that some companies are starting to refuse hiring smokers and that the same should be discussed at the next month’s meeting. He brought this to attention due to the fact that medical costs are rising 10 to 15 percent a year. Employing a smoker, on average, cost about $4000 more a year because of higher Health-Care cost and lost productivity. Smokers will have 50 percent more absenteeism and because of smoke break will work 1,817 hour less a year, that’s 39 minutes of lost productivity per day even when they’re present. Would it be ethical for American Express to not only refuse smokers but to fire current employees that smoke, or is it the choice of the person to make whatever decision they please?…
- 749 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
In Hospitality Law we were asked to complete an assignment that involves us completing a case study over a specific topic of our choice. I was given the opportunity to choose the topic of discrimination. I conducted some mild research in order to find a certain case that pertained to the topic of discrimination. After completing my research, I found a case that involves litigation against Walgreen Co. in the form of discrimination. The case is titled Raspardo vs. Carlone and I will be providing background information on the case, the main arguments from the parties involved, the laws applied to the case and how they apply and the managerial…
- 1119 Words
- 5 Pages
Better Essays -
While it is critical to urge individuals to quit smoking, charging smokers higher protection rates may not be a reasonable or viable strategy for accomplishing this objective. Managers and guarantors ought to precisely consider the ramifications of such strategies before they receive them. Strategies that are received ought to be reasonable and not undermine smokers ' right to gain entrance to human services. Approaches ought to record for individual varieties in wellbeing danger and may need to be re-examined in the event that they deliver have unintended negative results for smokers ' right to gain entrance to give a second thought and wellbeing.…
- 573 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
1. DePeters, Co. is sued for sex discrimination on the grounds that too few women are hired because fewer women than men achieve passing scores on a required manual dexterity and physical strength test. DePeters, Co. offers in its defense that even though fewer women score high enough on the test, a greater percentage of the passing women are hired. The company maintains that, as a result, the percentage of women in the workforce mirrors the percentage of available women in the labor pool. A group of women who took the test and failed file suit. Explain the basis for the cause of action, and analyze the merits of the cause of action, employer defenses, and likely outcome. Support your response with applicable law.…
- 1230 Words
- 5 Pages
Better Essays -
I believe there shouldn’t be a ban on hiring smokers because if you really think about it majority of today’s society does smoke. There will be many places that would be underemployed because there won’t be enough people out there to hire because they smoke. If they want to smoke there needs to be a designated place for them to smoke and they either A need to bring a change of clothes to smoke in or B just don’t smoke while working. The change of clothes could be used because the smell of the smoke stays in the clothes and say they are taking care of a patient who has asthma, well the smoke smell on the clothes wouldn’t be good for the patients and there is nothing that covers up the smell of smoke once on your clothes or in your hair. So therefore I think there should not be a ban on hiring smokers.…
- 315 Words
- 2 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
By companies banning their employees from smoking can infringe on the employee’s right to of privacy. This right…
- 747 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) is a well-known and widely used federal anti-discrimination law (LaMance, n.d.). Title VII make it illegal for employers to discriminate against someone based on their race, religion, national origin or sex (U.S. EEOC, 2014). The Act also made it illegal for employers to retaliate against a person who files a complaint of discrimination or participates in a discrimination investigation (U.S. EEOC, 2014). An employer who violates Title VII may find themselves subjected to a number of legal consequences such as having to pay large sums for damages and being required to readjust the company’s policies (LaMance, n.d.). To avoid violating Title VII Mr. Stonefield and his managers should treat all employees and applicants equally without regard to any characteristics except job performance (HR Specialist, 2013).…
- 901 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
In the banning of smoking breaks article, employers are becoming increasingly aware of the severe health issues related to smoking and the impact of smoking on job performance, absenteeism, and the rising cost of insurance health care benefits. It is not uncommon to see an employer refuse to offer a job to a candidate that admits to smoking. Those employees whom smoke are given the opportunity to seek nicotine replacement therapy for quitting and this is routinely covered by most health insurance. There are also numerous public health organizations assisting with smoking cessation.…
- 656 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
Shirley Smith is a 58 year old female employee that was a current cancer patient and over the past few years has been performing mediocre work. The issues that Rob Peterson and the company faces, if they should fire Ms. Smith, is that cancer is covered under the American’s with Disability Act. She is a female which makes her fall under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the fact that she is 58 years of age so she is covered under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. (Popejoy, 2006)…
- 2099 Words
- 9 Pages
Better Essays -
Since people smoke everyday they bring their nasty habit to work you can smell it on their clothes and when you walk outside for a break. Every workplace is entitled to have a smoke free workplace for their employees. This rule is existence with state and local governments. Some benefits to keep the workplace smoke free would be they would not be exposed to it at work. Smokers that are willing have a better chance at trying to quit will have an easy chance by not breathing it and wanting a cigarette each time. The employer may have the healthcare costs reduced which shows that the company cares. The employee may less likely to miss work because of smoke related illnesses. The office equipment will last longer such as the carpet and furniture. Here is a brief policy for companies to go by to make sure their workplace is smoke free. No smoking of tobacco products of any kind. The manager has the final say on the designated smoking area outside of the building. This designated area will remain 20 feet form the entrance. All materials used including cigarette butts and…
- 974 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
I chose option #1. Organizations should stay out of out personal lives, when we are not at work. There are privacy laws that are in place to protect our privacy. This is a very touchy issue to confront, as-well-as a legal issue. Everyone is entitled to their privacy. There are thinner people and non-smokers that are not healthy and they will also cost health care costs to rise. This is discrimination to single out a certain group of people. If this is the case, then they should include people who have BO, wear tons of cologne and perfume, smoke, gamble, etc. I feel just because people have certain behaviors other than doing drugs, does not mean they are not going to be an asset to the company. People should not judge others behaviors. There are many people who are very talented and can make a comapny grow successfully no matter if they are smoker, non-smoker, underweight over overweight this should not matter. Maybe this is why some businesses are suffering. I feel just hire the best person for the job no matter what. (You shouldn't judge a book by its cover).…
- 332 Words
- 2 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
Employment laws play a critical role in human resources management strategies and in an organization operation. Employee laws are design to protect the employees by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) “ federal enforcement agency enacted to ensure that employers follow and abide by rules set forth in the Civil Rights Acts of 1964”(Web Finance, 2012). However, the act insisted of “people should be given the same opportunities and equal changes to obtain employment regardless of their color, race, gender, national origin, or religion” (Stewart & Brown, 2012, pg. 80).…
- 1273 Words
- 6 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Employers, who have greater than 50 employees, will be penalized for not providing health care benefits for employees. I believe that working people should have insurance benefits, and I believe that employers should assist, if not completely cover the cost. Many businesses would fail if that requirement were part of the operating expense. In my idea of a perfect world, businesses would not be able to obtain a license and open if unable to provide what I think is an automatic working…
- 476 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
There once was a time when common sense and compassion were used to decide what to do with issues, but now that there are laws put in place to ensure that legal, safety, and regulatory requirements are obeyed there are less issues. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is one of those regulations. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission enforces federal laws which make it illegal for any organization to discriminate against someone applying for the position or someone who is already an employee for reasons like their race, gender, color of skin, age, disability, or religion. (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2011) This also ensures that a person who is claiming that they were discriminated against is not discriminated for that. These laws are applied to any type of work situations, like harassments, wages/benefits, hiring/firing, promotions, or any type of training. If a company discriminates based…
- 854 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
It has been brought to my attention that there are many issues with employees staying in the designated smoking area. Smoking has to be more than 500 feet from the office and we have employees who are smoking right outside of the door. Second hand smoke is very dangerous and harmful to a person. It is your choice to smoke but not the others person who is receiving second hand smoke. While smoking so close to the buildings every time the door is opened smoke enters the office. When people are walking from building to building they are breathing in the smoke as well. Employees who are not smokers, do not want to breathe these chemicals in. While I can’t remove smoking from the premises all together, a new policy is being put in place. There is no more smoking allowed near the buildings. Since the old designated smoking area did not work for everyone I have decided to make some changes to the outside to accommodate the employees who do smoke. There is going to be 3 picnic areas 500 feet away from the offices. These picnic areas will be set up with a cover, trash can and seating. Please make sure that these areas stay clean of all debris and are kept up. Cigarettes shall not be placed in the trash can but in the smolder holder next to them. With these new areas, smokers are allowed to take their brakes and smoke in an area that is far enough away from the offices but still have a place to sit and relax.…
- 267 Words
- 1 Page
Satisfactory Essays