Story tonight in MA about a man who was fired from Scotts for smoking at his home. The company gave him a drug test, he failed for "nicotine"... he was fired.
He never smoked at work, he never smoked on the job, in a van, on a call, etc.
Here's a link: http://cbs4boston.com/topstories/local_story_333201547.html
So, question is... smoking aside, can a company decide they won't hire you because they feel you have an unhealthy habit or lifestyle alone, and one that is only present at home and doesn't change your ability to do your job? He's suing, and I think (although personally I don't smoke or like it) he's right. This will be a very interesting case to watch unfold - it's issues like this that are going to shape the rights of employees in the future.
I'm more interested in the slippery slope it represents, and how this firing (if upheld) applies later when an employer chooses not to hire anyone who's BMI is above XX or someone who buys Twinkies and eats them at home.
Discuss.
(Just to be clear, I think the company acted within their rights as outlined by the law and the things they've stated in terms of making him aware, etc... so this isn't about the specific case, more the idea of what it represents if you spread the precedent around to other possible "unhealthy" lifestyles.)
He never smoked at work, he never smoked on the job, in a van, on a call, etc.
Here's a link: http://cbs4boston.com/topstories/local_story_333201547.html
So, question is... smoking aside, can a company decide they won't hire you because they feel you have an unhealthy habit or lifestyle alone, and one that is only present at home and doesn't change your ability to do your job? He's suing, and I think (although personally I don't smoke or like it) he's right. This will be a very interesting case to watch unfold - it's issues like this that are going to shape the rights of employees in the future.
I'm more interested in the slippery slope it represents, and how this firing (if upheld) applies later when an employer chooses not to hire anyone who's BMI is above XX or someone who buys Twinkies and eats them at home.
Discuss.
(Just to be clear, I think the company acted within their rights as outlined by the law and the things they've stated in terms of making him aware, etc... so this isn't about the specific case, more the idea of what it represents if you spread the precedent around to other possible "unhealthy" lifestyles.)
