Employment: MA Employee Questions Companys Policy

Ban on hiring smokers blasted
November 27, 2010
By Jay Fitzgerald 
Business leaders and even a prominent public-health expert think employers should butt out instead of refusing to hire people who smoke.
“It’s a form of discrimination,” Dr. Michael Siegel, a professor at Boston University’s School of Public Health and a well-known smoking critic.
Banning smoking in offices or restaurants is one thing, said Siegel, who played a significant key role in pushing for various workplace smoking bans, but banning people who smoke from getting jobs is an entirely different matter.
In recent weeks, the Massachusetts Hospital Association and Anna Jaques Hospital in Newburyport announced they would no longer hire employees who smoked, citing health concerns, the cost of insurance and the preference of patients.
The hospital association’s ban starts in January, while Anna Jaques’ smoker ban started immediately upon its announcement earlier this month. Anna Jaques, which has about 1,000 employees, is even requiring urine tests to make sure potential hires aren’t sneaking butts on the sly.
“It meets with our mission,” said Deborah Chiaravalloti, a spokeswoman for Anna Jaques.
But others say cracking down on smokers is going too far – and risks implementation of other pre-employment health requirements, from weight limits for employees to banning potential workers with dangerous hobbies, such as scuba diving or mountain climbing.
“Smokers are being singled out as (having) the one behavior not worthy of employment,” Siegel said.
“It’s a slippery slope,” said Andy Tarsy, executive director of the Progressive Business Leaders Association. “Are we going to start looking in people’s lunch buckets to see what they’re eating?”
Brian Gilmore, a vice president at the Associated Industries of Massachusetts, said his group hasn’t taken an official stand on the issue.
But he also expressed worry it could turn into a “slipper slope type of issue” with no end to who can and should be banned from even working at a site.

---

To Reduce Health Care Costs, Employers Should Refuse to Hire Anyone Exposed to Tobacco Smoke: Both Active Smokers and Passive Smokers

Massachusetts Man Who Was Fired for Smoking Off-the-Job Files Lawsuit Under Massachusetts Privacy Statute

---

Fired For Smoking Cigarettes?
Employee Questions Company’s Policy

September 28, 2006

BOSTON — If you’re an ethnic minority or a pregnant woman, you’re protected by law from discrimination in the workplace. But what if you’re a smoker?

Team 5 Investigates has found employers can legally extinguish your employment for a host of reasons that have nothing to do with your job performance.

NewsCenter 5’s Sean Kelly reported that Scott Rodrigues has been smoking for 15 years. He said that he didn’t expect to hear, “You’re fired.”

“They said, ‘Because you have nicotine in your system, you’re fired”‘” Kelly said.

“I said, ‘Well, I’m going to try and call corporate and see what I can do about it.’ And they said, ‘Well, actually, you are terminated. There’s nothing you can do about it,” Rodrigues said.

Last month, Rodrigues was still considered a new employee by the company, Scotts Lawn Service in Sagamore Beach. He had a uniform and earned a paycheck. Then, the results of his drug test showed that he’s a smoker.

“They were trying to have a smoke-free company, but no one explained to me that they’d be drug testing for nicotine,” he said.

That means employees cannot smoke at work or in their private life. Scotts said it is paying to help current employees quit. Rodrigues’ boss showed him the door.

“They’re legal, and if we can smoke cigarettes legally, I don’t think they should be able to say, ‘We don’t want people smoking, so we’re going to give you a drug test now, and if you have nicotine in your system, you’re done,'” Rodrigues said.

According to the company, it’s an economic issue. The company said it is trying to reduce escalating health care rates, and it claims each smoker could cost the company an additional $4,000 a year. That raises insurance premiums. Representatives said, “It’s unfair for us to ask our employees to pay for the cost of smoking.”

“The question isn’t just smoking off the premises. The question is, can an employer regulate an employee’s behavior when the employee is not on the job?” Boston University health law professor Leonard Glantz said.

Glantz called it bigotry. First, it’s the smokers; next, it could be people who are obese, skiers or people who ride motorcycles. Don’t they present health risks, he asked?

“Can an employer say, ‘If you have a bumper sticker on your car for a Democrat, that I am going to fire you because I think Republicans are better for my business’? Those arguments are exactly the same as the argument for restricting smokers,” Glantz said.

At least 28 states have laws against firing smokers. Some of them restrict employers from banning any legal activity a worker does during off hours. Massachusetts is not one of them, which means the chance of Rodrigues getting his job back has all but burned out.