Can Your Employer Make You Eat More Broccoli?

For years I’ve posed this scenario to Intro to Law students:  can an employer refuse to hire a new employee or terminate a current employee because they smoke cigarettes?  Some students believe employers should be able to hire or fire anyone they want for whatever reason they want.  The discrimination and wrongful discharge cases they generate will employ generations of lawyers and HR personnel.  Most are appalled with the concept of employers having the right to fire someone for engaging in lawful out-of-work activities.  A few see the nexus behind smoking and higher health-care costs. Virtually all assume it’s another far-fetched hypothetical, until I relate actual examples of smokers being rejected for employment or fired just because they are smokers.  I make the employers’ arguments until they see the cost-benefit logic, and then I ask if employers can fire you because you smoke cigarettes, can they fire you because you engage in high-risk sports?  Eat too much junk food? Don’t eat enough spinach?  Are obese? Where does it stop?  I promise that such lifestyle discrimination will become more prevalent.  (Indeed, a colleague teaches an employment-law seminar titled Lifestyle Discrimination.) My goal is to unsettle them. It works.

I make this promise every semester, yet haven’t seen many cases that back me up.  And that explains why I was happy to see the recent NYTimes article Hospitals Shift Smoking Bans to Smoker Bans.  It begins–

More hospitals and medical businesses in many states are adopting strict policies that make smoking a reason to turn away job applicants, saying they want to increase worker productivity, reduce health care costs and encourage healthier living. . . . The new rules essentially treat cigarettes like an illegal narcotic. Applications now explicitly warn of “tobacco-free hiring,” job seekers must submit to urine tests for nicotine and new employees caught smoking face termination. This shift — from smoke-free to smoker-free workplaces — has prompted sharp debate, even among anti-tobacco groups, over whether the policies establish a troubling precedent of employers intruding into private lives to ban a habit that is legal.

The article focuses on health-care employers, where non-smoking rules may have most appeal, but the principles behind a ban on employing smokers readily support bans for other reasons.  I can argue persuasively in favor of such bans, yet agree they establish dangerous precedents.  First they came for the smokers, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a smoker . . . (with apologies to Martin Niemöller)

3 thoughts on “Can Your Employer Make You Eat More Broccoli?”

  1. I agree and fully support this ban, not only because I am against smoking but also because of a quote in the article. “We felt it was unfair for employees who maintained healthy lifestyles to have to subsidize those who do not,” Steven C. Bjelich, chief executive of St. Francis Medical Center in Cape Girardeau, Mo., which stopped hiring smokers last month. “Essentially that’s what happens.” It really isn't fair that others who do not smoke have to pay for those who do. However, it is a scary thought to know that companies have that power to deny people the right of a job due to whether or not they smoke; how far will it go?

  2. I think the issue is a bit more complicated than it appears. I get the argument that you're bearing the costs for unhealthy people around you, and that it is not fair. I agree. But I think that we fail to take into consideration that not all individuals who smoke or engage in bad habits including dietary lifestyles or maybe even bad sleeping schedules. I'm against smoking as well, but I wonder if smokers want to quit. Do they smoke now because they want to (obviously they chose to) or because they're biologically addicted. I think people should be told about the reality… I think it should sort of be indirectly or even directly spoken to someone that they won't be able to secure jobs because of their lifestyles. Maybe that'll be a push for them to stop smoking. At the end of the day, addictions are hard to fight. Caffeine is a bad addiction too, and people who probably consume a more than necessary amount probably due it because they're addicted as well. It's not good for their hearts, but instead of not allowing them to work, they should be explained that it's something they'll need to train themselves not to sort of rely on.

    I don't argue against the ban, but I don't see how it's not discrimination and overall okay to say that you can't smoke if want to work here.

    I hope I made some sense.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *