• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Smoking Question on Employment Application

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Maryland

Is it legal to place the following two questions on our employment applications in Maryland:

Do you smoke cigarettes? If yes, how many per day?


Lots of debate about this, but we're tired of having smokers with all their smoke breaks, health problems, etc. In Maryland we are not required to give workers paid breaks other than an unpaid lunch each day and the smokers are always a problem for us.
 


cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
In Maryland, yes, it is. In some states smoking/not smoking is a characteristic protected by law, so it would be, if not technically illegal, at least unwise.

But in NO state are you required to provide smoke breaks. It is legal in EVERY state to require that employees who smoke only take whatever breaks are available to non-smokers. And if no breaks are available to non-smokers, and state law does not require them, then that's just too bad for the smokers.
 
In Maryland, yes, it is. In some states smoking/not smoking is a characteristic protected by law, so it would be, if not technically illegal, at least unwise.

But in NO state are you required to provide smoke breaks. It is legal in EVERY state to require that employees who smoke only take whatever breaks are available to non-smokers. And if no breaks are available to non-smokers, and state law does not require them, then that's just too bad for the smokers.
Yes, but in other states where we operate there are mandatory paid break periods, like in California so the smoking is not so much of a problem, because they are getting the same breaks as everyone else. Do we run into a problem not hiring smokers in Maryland but hiring them in California?
 

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
The only way you would be in trouble would be if you refused to hire a smoker, because he is a smoker, in one of the states where it is protected.

You know that you don't HAVE to allow smoking at all on your property, right? That even in states where you have mandatory breaks, you can simply forbid smoking anywhere on the premises?
 

ecmst12

Senior Member
You know, it's not a bad policy to provide reasonable breaks to everyone even when it's not required by law. Good for morale, good for productivity, etc.
 
You know, it's not a bad policy to provide reasonable breaks to everyone even when it's not required by law. Good for morale, good for productivity, etc.
Paying people not to work is not good for productivity. It might help morale, but since we're giving 40 hours pay we'd like 40 hours of work in exchange for it unless the law requires us to do otherwise.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
Paying people not to work is not good for productivity. It might help morale, but since we're giving 40 hours pay we'd like 40 hours of work in exchange for it unless the law requires us to do otherwise.
actually, it can improve production. It's the excessive breaks that are what causes a loss of production.


and in some states the law does require breaks be provided.

Tell you what wino, take a group of workers. One of them, you tell them they have to work 10 hours, straight through, no breaks, no lunches.

Then take another group. Give them a 1/2 hour lunch and a 10 min break in the morn and one in the afternoon and work them a 10 hour day (10 1/2 hours at work due to the unpaid lunch)

I would put money on the second group equaling or exceeding the production of the first group. On top of that, your turnover rate will be lower with the second group and your injury rate will be lower. It costs money to train new people. You will more than likely have a lower rate of absenteeism as well.
 
The only way you would be in trouble would be if you refused to hire a smoker, because he is a smoker, in one of the states where it is protected.
Thanks for the starting point. Now I'll send the new app to our corporate counsel for final approval. That's the great thing about this board, if you had said no, I would have believed you and not spent any attorney's fees. Now BECAUSE I believe you I have to spend attorneys fees ;-).

You know that you don't HAVE to allow smoking at all on your property, right? That even in states where you have mandatory breaks, you can simply forbid smoking anywhere on the premises?
Our offices are located in multi-tenant mid and high rise office buildings. I don't know if I can put something in our handbook that says that they can't smoke in designated smoking areas on their own time. I just don't want them doing it on mine. The problem with smokers is they are SO addicted that they will sneak out of the office for a puff (you just can't monitor everybody all the time) or (worse) light up in the restrooms which generates complaints from other tenants in the building. We can have the police come out and cite them if they do light up in the building but often they do it and are never identified although we have our suspicions. I'm just through hiring them here in Maryland if I don't have to.

P.S. I'm a smoker (Camels). LOL!
 

swalsh411

Senior Member
Paying people not to work is not good for productivity. It might help morale, but since we're giving 40 hours pay we'd like 40 hours of work in exchange for it unless the law requires us to do otherwise.
When well rested and motivated, I can get more done in a morning than many people can get done all day. Which would you rather have? Employees who are just biding their time until they have put in their 40 hours for the week or employees who actually want to get work done?
 

justalayman

Senior Member
I'm just through hiring them here in Maryland if I don't have to.

P.S. I'm a smoker (Camels). LOL!
well, so far in Michigan an employer can actually fire an employee that smokes. I'm not talking about at work but at all. There was an employer that started it a couple years ago. He told everybody that worked for him that the either stop smoking, entirely, or they would be terminated. He helped with smoking cessation efforts (not sure exactly what he did but there was some assistance). After the proscribed time, those that continued to smoke, even off work time, were terminated. I went to the MI Supreme Court and the people lost. So, open your business in MI and you can fire anybody that smokes.
 

Mass_Shyster

Senior Member
so, for those that don't want smokers working for them, they should move their business to Michigan.

(got to do anything I can to get our (MI) economy moving again:D)
Do you really want an influx from Mass? We can't drive and kept voting for Teddy.

Did the MI case argue ERISA? If not, they could try again in a Federal Court. (I'm not sure if ERISA offers concurrent jurisdiction or if it must be brought in a Federal Court).
 

justalayman

Senior Member
Stevef;3061331]Do you really want an influx from Mass? We can't drive and kept voting for Teddy.
Sure. You have to realize the $1 Mass is worth at least $2 MI but if you go to places like Detroit, it's more like $4 MI.

Did the MI case argue ERISA? If not, they could try again in a Federal Court. (I'm not sure if ERISA offers concurrent jurisdiction or if it must be brought in a Federal Court).
I'll have to look. I don't recall hearing any mention of ERISA in any of the reading but not positive.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top