Is refusal to hire someone because they are a smoker or overweight a violation of labor laws?
Not a lawyer, but dont think either qualifys as a protected demographic. That said, is it ilegal to refuse to hire a non-smoker, or non drinker.
Declan
Is that true everywhere (a federal law I mean)? Because I know a bar owner in one of the few places where smoking is still permitted in bars and he openly refuses to hire (admitted) non-drinkers or (admitted) non-smokers.
It is a small, single owner bar in a tiny town, but he is afraid a non-smoking employee would eventually complain about the smoke-filled environment and cause the city to re-think their ordinances.
He won’t hire non-drinkers because he thinks it’s bad for business. 
The town is small enough that his employees are also his best customers.
I have heard often enough about refusal to hire smokers that I believe it is not considered discrimination and is legal (but I don’t know for sure) and I have heard rumors that some hospitals (whose hiring practices I am more familiar with than non-hospital employers) even test for nicotine in the course of pre-employment drug screening, but that could be just a rumor.
Scotts Lawn Care has had a no smoking policy on and off the job and enforces it with random urine tests. It has survived Federal court battles. If I was fired over this I would be unhappy.
Scott’s only uses this as a pre-employment screening so they are not firing established workers. In the case cited I don’t understand why the 2 week interval between hiring and firing. Seems like a kettle of fish to me.
Only if someone can show it disproportionately affects a protected class. Doubtful.
More cynically, I can imagine another plus: a former employee suffers lung cancer and tries to sue, claiming on-the-job exposure. The employer points out that the employee is also a smoker. Case dismissed.
I could actually see the case for an American company not hiring smokers because of the possible increased medical costs - as far as I know, businesses are not required to increase their operating costs for unprotected classes of workers (I’m by no means an expert - this is just my general understanding).
Wouldn’t that be equivalent to not hiring women on the grounds that they might get babies, which drastically increase medical costs ? Which I’m not even sure is illegal, BTW, however it would certainly cause one hell of a media hullabaloo if an employer said so publicly.
Sex is a protected class, status as a smoker isn’t. The closest you could do would be to try to swing something under the Americans with Disabilities Act, claiming that your addiction to nicotene was a disease, and the employer should be required to make reasonable accomodations for you. Some addictions do count under the ADA, I believe, but I am pretty certain smoking isn’t one of them.
Not at all. There’s a big difference between not hiring someone on the basis of real or perceived attributes of a protected class and not hiring someone because they, as an individual, have a particular real or perceived attribute. It’s the difference between thinking someone is a crook because he’s an African-American and thinking he’s a crook because he’s got a criminal record.
Fair point. I retract the equivalence.
When I lived in North Carolina (five years ago or so) I remember seeing ads for workers in the tobacco warehouses that specifically said they were looking for smokers. I assumed this was so that you couldn’t turn up with lung cancer 40 years from now and claim that it was working in their warehouse that did it.
I don’t know if they would be obligated to consider a non-smoker if one showed up and applied.
There is no federal protection for “smokers” from discrimination in the workplace.
There are some 29 states which have created a workplace protection for smokers from discrimination at some level (see this list). The extent of the “protection” varies. Note that the need for statutory protection means that the class of smokers is not constitutionally protected.
As an example, California has enacted Section 96(k), which allows the Labor Commissioner to investigate any claim of firing resulting from otherwise lawful activities outside of work, and Section 98.6, which precludes an employer from taking a discriminatory action, including firing, suspension, etc., against an employee for having done such an activity. Smoking being a legal activity, smoking away from work cannot be the reason for an adverse action by your employer. This includes discriminatory actions against an applicant for work.
These sections would not preclude an employer from establishing a rule against smoking at work, however.
Depends on if that’s a protected class.
Federal laws have certain protected groups but my state CA has added even more groups to that category. I don’t think, however, that weight and smoking are protected classes, though I suppose if the reason behind them is medical, they may win a lawsuit saying that they were discriminated based on medical reasons, which I believe IS a protected class.
No, you just offer a medical plan that excludes all pregnancy or pregnancy-related coverage. That takes care of it. Usually women who are or are considering having a child will eliminate themself by not accepting a job at your company.
Note that most of the Federal (and often State, too) rules on this don’t apply to ‘small’ businesses (under 15 employees, I believe).
Seriously ? That exists ?