S
ssjlcat
Guest
I think the article in the Paper says it best so I copied it below. Can anyone tell me if this would fall under Federal Discrimination laws? Whats next not hiring people who drink? People who eat fast food? Overweight?
Temple Terrace won't hire smokers
MICHAEL DUNN
of The Tampa Tribune
If you smoke, don't bother applying for a job with the city of Temple Terrace.
The city has adopted a policy banning the hiring of smokers. And if you light up, even at home, you could be fired.
``Basically, we're trying to establish a healthier work force, and with insurance rates skyrocketing, it's something we feel we need to do,'' said Woody Hubbard, director of human resources.
The policy appears to be catching on nationally, Hubbard said, as municipalities grapple with the cost of employee health insurance. Austin, Texas, and Springfield, Mo., have similar policies.
Last year, the state attorney's office in Orlando announced it no longer would hire smokers.
``A lot of cities are talking about it. I think it's a trend,'' Hubbard said. ``We had a sharp increase in health costs last year. And they've proven that even secondhand smoke is connected to various medical problems.''
Studies show smokers take more sick days, are ill more often, drive up insurance rates and take too many breaks, he said.
Some say the policy is ridiculous.
``It's absurd,'' said David Guren, a 20-year-old Temple Terrace bartender who smokes.
``Every American has the right to smoke and the right to work,'' he said. ``Smoking cigarettes is totally legal.''
Railroad employee Willie VonGlahn, 40, doesn't smoke, but he agrees with Guren.
``How prejudicial is that?'' he asked. ``A lot of people want to work for the city. It's like saying we're not going to hire you because your hair is black. It's totally unfair.''
Fair or not, the policy is legal.
In a case involving the city of North Miami, the Florida Supreme Court in 1996 ruled the city was within its rights to ban the hiring of smokers. An applicant had sued the city, citing a violation of privacy. But the court said the city's goal of reducing employment costs by guarding against smoking-related illnesses was legitimate.
Temple Terrace's employment form asks applicants if they smoke. They are required to acknowledge in writing that they do not. If they are later found to be smokers, they can be fired, Hubbard said.
``I'd assume they'd be re leased because of lying on their application,'' he said.
The policy does not apply to current employees.
City Councilman Joe Affronti, who doesn't smoke, said he supports the policy. It was made at the administrative level and did not require a council vote.
``I like it. I think it's not only in the city's interest, but also in the interests of the individual,'' he said. ``It boggles my mind when people know of all the health problems, and they continue to smoke.''
Asked if the policy is discriminatory or unfair, Affronti was hard-pressed to say.
``That's a tough question,'' he said. ``On the one hand, you can [ask] why they are going to eliminate people who smoke, even if they're as qualified as anyone else. But I think we should have the right to hire people who fit in with our policies.''
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
If I went to get a job here and later they found out I smoked (which I don't) then fired me, would I have a potentially large civil claim against the city for Discrimination.
Temple Terrace won't hire smokers
MICHAEL DUNN
of The Tampa Tribune
If you smoke, don't bother applying for a job with the city of Temple Terrace.
The city has adopted a policy banning the hiring of smokers. And if you light up, even at home, you could be fired.
``Basically, we're trying to establish a healthier work force, and with insurance rates skyrocketing, it's something we feel we need to do,'' said Woody Hubbard, director of human resources.
The policy appears to be catching on nationally, Hubbard said, as municipalities grapple with the cost of employee health insurance. Austin, Texas, and Springfield, Mo., have similar policies.
Last year, the state attorney's office in Orlando announced it no longer would hire smokers.
``A lot of cities are talking about it. I think it's a trend,'' Hubbard said. ``We had a sharp increase in health costs last year. And they've proven that even secondhand smoke is connected to various medical problems.''
Studies show smokers take more sick days, are ill more often, drive up insurance rates and take too many breaks, he said.
Some say the policy is ridiculous.
``It's absurd,'' said David Guren, a 20-year-old Temple Terrace bartender who smokes.
``Every American has the right to smoke and the right to work,'' he said. ``Smoking cigarettes is totally legal.''
Railroad employee Willie VonGlahn, 40, doesn't smoke, but he agrees with Guren.
``How prejudicial is that?'' he asked. ``A lot of people want to work for the city. It's like saying we're not going to hire you because your hair is black. It's totally unfair.''
Fair or not, the policy is legal.
In a case involving the city of North Miami, the Florida Supreme Court in 1996 ruled the city was within its rights to ban the hiring of smokers. An applicant had sued the city, citing a violation of privacy. But the court said the city's goal of reducing employment costs by guarding against smoking-related illnesses was legitimate.
Temple Terrace's employment form asks applicants if they smoke. They are required to acknowledge in writing that they do not. If they are later found to be smokers, they can be fired, Hubbard said.
``I'd assume they'd be re leased because of lying on their application,'' he said.
The policy does not apply to current employees.
City Councilman Joe Affronti, who doesn't smoke, said he supports the policy. It was made at the administrative level and did not require a council vote.
``I like it. I think it's not only in the city's interest, but also in the interests of the individual,'' he said. ``It boggles my mind when people know of all the health problems, and they continue to smoke.''
Asked if the policy is discriminatory or unfair, Affronti was hard-pressed to say.
``That's a tough question,'' he said. ``On the one hand, you can [ask] why they are going to eliminate people who smoke, even if they're as qualified as anyone else. But I think we should have the right to hire people who fit in with our policies.''
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
If I went to get a job here and later they found out I smoked (which I don't) then fired me, would I have a potentially large civil claim against the city for Discrimination.