Comments on: Fired Smoker Sues Ex-Employer

Man Says Company Violated Rights By Firing Him Because He Smokes

[stm5]

You have got to be kidding me? Nicotine? This is unreal.

What's next? junk food, too much suger, caffine, lack of exercise?

I use Scott's Lawn service and have for several years. I just called to cancel my lawn care service. Additionally, I will not purchase one more Scotts product.

[sy2502]

Why don't they test them for doughnuts too... after all they are really bad for cholesterol, which is bad for your heart. In fact, since more people in the US die of heart conditions than lung cancer, they shoul test them for high cholesterol more than they test them for nicotine.
Bottom line: they are way out of line!

[fallngempire]

All this outrage over intruding on the "rights of nicotine smokers in their own homes"? Why not make the next logical leap and include ALL drugs. The government should not be able to tell you what you can and can not put inside your body, especially when they continue to play both sides of the "war on drugs" against the middle: Us.

Read "Into the Buzzsaw".

[bigmama_8099]

I'm sorry, but I think what you do in your private time and that doesn't affect your work abilities is none of their business. Its a bad habit, but its his choice and he did it on HIS own time..

It is a LEGAL subtance, not a drug. What next, you can't have caffine??

I think the insurance is high enough, but have him pay alittle more from is own pocket. Not the company and then it doesn't effect anyone, but himself.

Company shouldn't have a say on legal subtances, such as caffine or something to that effect..

[bigmama_8099]

I'm sorry, but I think what you do in your private time and that doesn't affect your work abilities is none of their business. Its a bad habit, but its his choice and he did it on HIS own time..

It is a LEGAL subtance, not a drug. What next, you can't have caffine??

I think the insurance is high enough, but have him pay alittle more from is own pocket. Not the company and then it doesn't effect anyone, but himself.

Company shouldn't have a say on legal subtances, such as caffine or something to that effect..

[bigmama_8099]

I'm sorry, but I think what you do in your private time and that doesn't affect your work abilities is none of their business. Its a bad habit, but its his choice and he did it on HIS own time..

It is a LEGAL subtance, not a drug. What next, you can't have caffine??

I think the insurance is high enough, but have him pay alittle more from is own pocket. Not the company and then it doesn't effect anyone, but himself.

Company shouldn't have a say on legal subtances, such as caffine or something to that effect..

[naber1961]

hope u win BIG, Scott!

[naber1961]

Is the Scott's company a subsidary Dubya Inc?
LOL What you do, who you call, etc, in the privacy of your own home legally, should be a constitutional right, and not be infringe upon by anyone.

[oleander8]

Outrageous. I hope the guy wins his case.
Almost makes me want to take up smoking again in protest.

[cathaleen]

You can't lay the insurance trip on this. It is clearly a violation of people's rights. What's next. You can't have a drink because it could cause liver desease, now that is expensive, gay people will be fired because they could get aids.
What you do on your own time and in your own home as long as it is legal is nobody's business. Now if an employer doesn't want to insure smokers, that's their perogative.

[mygramma]

Good point, kesac4650. But I think Scott's rationale , "to promote healthful lifestyles and hold down insurance costs" is, on the lifestyles count, no justification for the violation, and on the insurance cost claim, it's bogus. They may be able to get an insurance company to testify that there is a cost saving, but I seriously doubt they can document that it actually happens, or at least substantial enough to outweigh the individual's civil and privacy rights.

[kesac4650]

Well the Supreme Court has ruled public good out weighs privacy in the case of seatbelt laws.
Then again, privacy out weighs public health concerns in the case of Sodomy laws.
The guy might as well get this tested in court, but their just ain't no predicting those 9 old folks on the bench.