Look, I agree with this being a slippery slope. However, the company clearly implemented a policy banning users of nicotine-not using nicotine on the job. This guy obviously signed something or otherwise affirmed that he wasn\’t using nicotine and he lied. Now he got caught and it\’s an invasion of his privacy. Because of liars like him, the company has to verify if they\’re being told the truth. Smokers/users of nicotine are not a protected class so you can fire \’em if you want to. It would be a whole heck of a lot smarter just to charge him a higher premium and get on with it, but the company has the right to do what they did. Comparing smoking to eating chocolate is stupid. Comparing it to obesity is certainly a better comparison and does beg the question where does this end, but at some point I\’d think obesity becomes a covered medical condition under ADA-\”smoking\” isn\’t.
I\’m with BJH!!!! this VERY thing has just happened here in the Tampa area with a very LARGE Insurance Retailer. I happened to be working there when they instituted this ridiculous rule. I was lucky enough to find other employment immediately. This will not stop w/ just smoking! most cetainly you can bet if you\’re overwheight, pre diabetic, have high blood pressure, aren\’t the right religion or member of the CEO\’s political affiliation you\’ll be fired as well-I hope this guy wins as well on just principle alone – I also will not be purchasing Miracle Grow products-
Non-smokers have no qualms about denying rights to smokers even in their own homes, but wait until their rights are subordinated by a company wishing to lower insurance premiums.
Overweight? Have high blood pressure? Any other medical condition? Scott\’s can choose to deny employment to you as well for the same reason.
The issue isn\’t whether Scott\’s is legally entitled to do so when it is a precondition of employment, but whether behavior that is otherwise legal can be a reason to be denied employment.
To \”cut the crap\” -Sure comparing smoking to eating chocolate is stupid, one is physically addicting and the other isn\’t.
I also agree that it is hypocritical of Scott\’s to promote \’healthy lifestyles\’ when they manufacture and distribute products that are harmful to the environment.
Maybe it\’s time to start a \”grass roots\” campaign to boycott Scott\’s-Miracle Gro\” products.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Look, I agree with this being a slippery slope. However, the company clearly implemented a policy banning users of nicotine-not using nicotine on the job. This guy obviously signed something or otherwise affirmed that he wasn\’t using nicotine and he lied. Now he got caught and it\’s an invasion of his privacy. Because of liars like him, the company has to verify if they\’re being told the truth. Smokers/users of nicotine are not a protected class so you can fire \’em if you want to. It would be a whole heck of a lot smarter just to charge him a higher premium and get on with it, but the company has the right to do what they did. Comparing smoking to eating chocolate is stupid. Comparing it to obesity is certainly a better comparison and does beg the question where does this end, but at some point I\’d think obesity becomes a covered medical condition under ADA-\”smoking\” isn\’t.
I\’m with BJH!!!! this VERY thing has just happened here in the Tampa area with a very LARGE Insurance Retailer. I happened to be working there when they instituted this ridiculous rule. I was lucky enough to find other employment immediately. This will not stop w/ just smoking! most cetainly you can bet if you\’re overwheight, pre diabetic, have high blood pressure, aren\’t the right religion or member of the CEO\’s political affiliation you\’ll be fired as well-I hope this guy wins as well on just principle alone – I also will not be purchasing Miracle Grow products-
Non-smokers have no qualms about denying rights to smokers even in their own homes, but wait until their rights are subordinated by a company wishing to lower insurance premiums.
Overweight? Have high blood pressure? Any other medical condition? Scott\’s can choose to deny employment to you as well for the same reason.
The issue isn\’t whether Scott\’s is legally entitled to do so when it is a precondition of employment, but whether behavior that is otherwise legal can be a reason to be denied employment.
To \”cut the crap\” -Sure comparing smoking to eating chocolate is stupid, one is physically addicting and the other isn\’t.
I also agree that it is hypocritical of Scott\’s to promote \’healthy lifestyles\’ when they manufacture and distribute products that are harmful to the environment.
Maybe it\’s time to start a \”grass roots\” campaign to boycott Scott\’s-Miracle Gro\” products.