Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Banning Smokers May Harm Your Company's Health
Companies have been attracting a lot of headlines lately by adopting new policies that prohibit the hiring of smokers. Proponents of these policies recite a number of benefits for the organization and the workforce, including promoting employee health, lowering health insurance costs and improving employee productivity. Among the employers adopting these policies have been Humana, Geisinger Health System, Alaska Airlines and Union-Pacific Railroad. An estimated 6,000 companies across the country refuse to hire smokers.
What the Law Says
With the exception of states that ban discrimination against smokers (such as New Jersey), employers are entitled under the law to choose not to hire smokers. And for many employers, especially those in health care, banning smokers is consistent with their missions and makes a lot of sense. Nevertheless, for a variety of reasons set forth below, a “no-smokers” rule may create a variety of unintended and undesirable consequences. Perhaps most disturbing, such a policy takes the unprecedented step, for most employers, of regulating lawful, off-duty conduct by workers.
Listed below are my top 10 reasons that employers should think before jumping on the bandwagon to adopt a “smokers need not apply” rule:
1. The slippery, smoky slope. If employers decide to exclude employees who smoke at home, what is next? Banning those who drink alcohol, eat fast food, gamble or ride motorcycles? It may make more sense for all involved to focus on how well the employee does his or her job, as opposed to what legal lifestyle choices he or she makes outside of work.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.