Urinalysis to also test for nicotine

The Massachusetts District Court upheld an employer’s right to withdraw a contingent employment offer to a smoker after the results of a urinalysis revealed the presence of nicotine, even though the individual had already begun employment. In determining there was no public policy to support the plaintiff’s wrongful termination claim, the Court noted that the public policy regarding smoking is “more aligned with efforts to suppress or discourage smoking than with the protection of the ‘right to smoke.’”

I have noticed more and more employers asking on applications as part of a hiring process if a person smokes!!! and not to mention the fact that many mention this REQUIREMENT during an interview!!!

What are your thoughts??

If the employer made the offer of employment contingent upon the applicant not being a smoker, and it was later discovered by whatever means that he was, then the applicant misrepresented himself in continuing with the application and/or taking up the employment. It would be right therefore for the employer to dismiss.

Without going into the rights, wrongs or desirability of imposing a 'no smoker' condition, an employer can insist on this and other factors as a condition of employment. In the UK we have anti-discrimination laws but they certainly don't extend to discrimination of this sort and I doubt they do in other countries.

We don't know what the nature of the employment was. It could have been in a munitions factory or other fire sensitive or chemical environment where it was dangerous to smoke. It could even be, and probably was, that the employer simply didn't want an employee taking time out from his working day to smoke.

There would have been only one other excuse for the presence of nicotine and that would have been nicotine replacement therapy by patch or similar when a smoker had ceased to smoke but if that had been the case then it would surely have been presented as a valid cause.

Seems like companies are really over stepping their boundaries

Welcome to the People's republic of Massachusetts. I believe that the reasoning behind this ludicrous testing has more to do with benefits than anything else. Some insurance companies charge more for life and health insurance for smokers than non-smokers. This raises the cost to the employer who, in Massachusetts, has to offer health insurance. If it was just because they don't like smoke, they can simply ban smoking on their property.

Smoking stinks!

If an employer wants a smoke free group of employees, that's his prerogative. It may also reduce the cost of his health insurnance for employees as noted above.

Smokers pollute the air just by walking into the room. Their clothes, hair and breath smell disgusting.

I have a friend here in Kansas who has applied at jobs as a correction officer at a state prison, it even said on its applications, all applicants will be tested, as employees are not allowed to smoke!!

There are behaviors and conditions, smoking, drinking 'in excess regularly', being overweight, etc. which, right or not, affect individuals and groups to which those individuals belong, such as the insurance pool with an employer. We can try carrots or sticks which is reflected in car and home insurance: money saved because you have an alarm, certain locks, the neighborhood has few claims, you have a great FICO score. It's about costs, cost containment and risk. There are attempts to penalize someone who going to the emergency room if the treatment sought could, or should, have been handled by a pcp, such as a pregnancy test.

Susie that may be the case and I do agree but lets just think about this. You mean the same big companies that "promote health" by not hiring smokers, but instead host corporate happy hours? Ahh yes alcohol is such a benefit to society. Actually has a higher cost to insurance than smoking. I guess too many people like alcohol though, so we'll just bury our heads back in the sand and hate on smokers. I have never smoked either, but I dont like taking people's rights away. Cant leave things as the employer's perogative, because next thing you'll see certain places only hiring men, only individuals of a certain height and strength level, etc. I thought we had evolved from all that?

Nymedical, point well taken. However, I also agree with Susie that "smoking" is not something I care to be around. My choice.

If companies don't want to hire smokers then that's up to them, fair enough as you can quit smoking (as opposed to not being able to quit being disabled, say). Did the employers actually state that they would not hire smokers before testing? If not then I can see how the person would be pissed off as it's not really fair to hire someone and then go "oh yeah I forgot we don't hire smokers." If they didn't make their policy clear during the application process they should rectify this in the future to avoid wasting everyone's time.

That said I have never heard of anyone (in the UK) being turned down for a job purely because they smoke, and the only jobs I have ever seen which specifically request non-smokers have been for personal carers for individuals - even then it's by no means universal. I recently swapped fags for an electronic cigarette, they don't stink up the place or turn the walls yellow which is nice.