{"id":1529,"date":"2014-02-05T18:18:43","date_gmt":"2014-02-05T23:18:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www3.law.harvard.edu\/journals\/jol\/?p=1529"},"modified":"2018-08-29T00:14:04","modified_gmt":"2018-08-29T04:14:04","slug":"employer-justification-for-smoker-discrimination","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jol\/2014\/02\/05\/employer-justification-for-smoker-discrimination\/","title":{"rendered":"Employer Justification for Smoker Discrimination"},"content":{"rendered":"

Employer Justification for Smoker Discrimination<\/strong><\/p>\n

Jenna Tynan<\/strong>[*]<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Imagine you\u2019re a first-year associate and after your standard fourteen-hour workday, you sit back and indulge in a product recently found more addictive than cocaine: the iconic Oreo.[2]<\/a>\u00a0You rush back to work the next morning with a wayward Oreo stain on your favorite blazer only to end yet another long day\u2026with a pink slip!?!\u00a0 You violated the firm\u2019s categorical ban on Oreo consumption promulgated to reduce diabetic healthcare costs believed to rise with sugar consumption.\u00a0 Luckily for this author, no employer has banned recreational Oreo consumption, but America\u2019s over 43 million smokers aren\u2019t so fortunate.[3]<\/a> Healthcare industries, city municipalities and airlines have banned hiring prospective candidates who smoke or use tobacco products, citing controlling costs and presenting a \u201chealthy\u201d image for their rationale.[4]<\/a>\u00a0These employers may be justified in their decision given the new \u201ctax\u201d for not proving health benefits to all employees. However, employer regulation, and especially government employer regulation, of what happens in an employee\u2019s home seems to conflict with those penumbral privacy rights cherished and protected by our judicial system.<\/p>\n

As a result, twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have enacted \u201csmoker protection laws,\u201d which prohibit various forms of discrimination based on a candidate\u2019s off-duty smoking habits.[5]<\/a>\u00a0The laws vary in their expansiveness and application.[6]<\/a>\u00a0For example, D.C.\u2019s legislation exempts employers who prove nonsmoker status is a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ).\u00a0This carve out may lessen the worries of the hospitals, clinics and fire stations most likely to institute the bans.\u00a0Other state legislation such as Kentucky\u2019s statute eases employers\u2019 cost concerns by banning smoking-based discrimination for hiring and termination decisions but allowing employers to charge higher rates to smokers for employer-subsidized healthcare premiums.\u00a0However, most of these laws prohibit any smoker-directed discriminatory activity, and some, such as California\u2019s and North Dakota\u2019s, extend protection to any employee\u2019s \u201clawful off-duty\u201d activities.\u00a0Especially with the recent legalization of marijuana, employers may question how these laws square off with previously adopted drug-free workplace policies.<\/p>\n

Though employers\u2019 smoking-based discrimination seems to infringe an employee\u2019s right to engage in a lawful off-duty and private activity, state intervention could also be attacked with a similar rationale. \u00a0First, employers may invoke the \u201ccontract clause\u201d constitutional defense, which states that no state can enact a law violating the obligation of contracts.[7]<\/a> Employers could aver that such statutes impinge on both their rights and an employee\u2019s rights to enter into valid employment obligations.\u00a0However, such an argument is likely to fail in the post-Lochner<\/em> Era.\u00a0Employers could also appeal to theories that such regulation constitutes confiscatory \u201ctakings;\u201d[8]<\/a> but they are more likely to rely on business needs (such as the case with hospitals), the need to guarantee compliance with smoke-free workplace requirements,[9]<\/a> or the notion that they shouldn\u2019t have to pay for wrongs caused by tobacco companies.\u00a0In this case, a business\u2019s right to control costs and shape its workforce conflicts with a person\u2019s right to engage in a lawful private activity.\u00a0This conflict evokes the questions of whether states should legislatively declare smokers a protected class and how legislation should be tailored to balance competing employer interests.\u00a0With the rapidly-changing healthcare regime, this issue is one to watch in the future.<\/p>\n

\n

[*]<\/a> J.D. Candidate, Harvard Law School, 2016.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Oreos just as addictive as cocaine\u2014in rats<\/em>, United Press Int\u2019l (Oct. 15, 2013), https:\/\/www.upi.com\/Health_News\/2013\/10\/15\/Oreos-just-as-addictive-as-cocaine-in-rats\/76821381873121\/ [https:\/\/perma.cc\/L9DY-GACE].<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> See<\/em> Current Cigarette Smoking Among Adults in the United States, Ctrs. for Disease Control and Prevention, https:\/\/www.cdc.gov\/tobacco\/data_statistics\/fact_sheets\/adult_data\/cig_smoking\/ [https:\/\/perma.cc\/WVQ3-ADX2].<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> David A. Asch, Ralph W. Muller & Kevin G. Volpp, Conflicts and Compromises in Not Hiring Smokers<\/em>, New England J. Med. (Apr. 11, 2013), https:\/\/www.nejm.org\/doi\/full\/10.1056\/NEJMp1303632 [https:\/\/perma.cc\/H2TY-E4LR].<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> State \u2018Smoker Protection\u2019 Laws<\/em>, Am. Lung Assoc., http:\/\/www.lungusa2.org\/slati\/appendixf.php [https:\/\/perma.cc\/AR6R-ERNY].<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> Discrimination Laws Regarding Off-Duty Conduct<\/em>, Nat\u2019l Conf. of State Legislatures (Oct. 18, 2010), http:\/\/www.ncsl.org\/documents\/employ\/Off-DutyConductDiscrimination.pdf [https:\/\/perma.cc\/JNN5-8MAC].<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> U.S. Const. art. I, \u00a7 10, cl. 1.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> U.S. Const. amend. V.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> See, e.g.<\/em>, State Smoke-Free Laws for Worksites, Restaurants, and Bars\u2014United States, 2000-2010<\/em>, Ctrs. for Disease Control and Prevention (Apr. 22, 2011), https:\/\/www.cdc.gov\/mmwr\/preview\/mmwrhtml\/mm6015a2.htm [https:\/\/perma.cc\/99C3-V36U].<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Employer Justification for Smoker Discrimination Jenna Tynan[*]   Imagine you\u2019re a first-year associate and after your standard fourteen-hour workday, you […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1530,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2,27,28],"tags":[11],"class_list":["post-1529","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-featured","category-jol-commentary","category-jol-online","tag-featured-2"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jol\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/86\/2014\/02\/440px-No_Smoking.svg_1.png?fit=440%2C440&ssl=1","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/peZQ7o-oF","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1529","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1529"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1529\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1530"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1529"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1529"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1529"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}