The Ethics of Not Hiring Smokers

and the Institute for Health and Social Policy and the Department of Philosophy, McGill University, Montreal (K.V.).
New England Journal of Medicine (Impact Factor: 55.87). 03/2013; 368(15). DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1301951
Source: PubMed


Finding employment is becoming increasingly difficult for smokers. Twenty-nine U.S. states have passed legislation prohibiting employers from refusing to hire job candidates because they smoke, but 21 states have no such restrictions. Many health care organizations, such as the Cleveland Clinic and Baylor Health Care System, and some large non-health care employers, including Scotts Miracle-Gro, Union Pacific Railroad, and Alaska Airlines, now have a policy of not hiring smokers - a practice opposed by 65% of Americans, according to a 2012 poll by Harris International. We agree with those polled, believing that categorically refusing to hire smokers is unethical: it . . .

Download full-text


Available from: Harald Schmidt,
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recently, several employers around the country announced they would no longer hire applicants who use nicotine, even off the clock. Just last year, one entity adopted a policy that it would not employ individuals classified as severely obese. Read together, nicotine and obesity bans can be understood as employer practices that intentionally screen out unhealthy individuals.Yet should these employer practices constitute legally actionable discrimination? That question is the central inquiry of this Article. It begins by identifying those recently adopted policies as discrimination on the basis of employee health. It then analyzes this novel brand of employment discrimination by comparing employer bans on nicotine and obesity to the employment actions forbidden by the current federal statutes that cover health-related information, mainly the Rehabilitation and Americans with Disabilities Acts, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability and Affordable Care Acts. The Article distinguishes between discrimination on the basis of health-related traits and discrimination on the basis of health-related conduct. Because the existing laws are uniformly trait-based, prohibiting employment policies related to nicotine use and weight requires a different kind of antidiscrimination statute. The Article then surveys existing state legislation that limits an employer’s ability to discriminate on the basis of unhealthy behavior. It ends by proposing that well-structured legislation could reconcile the concerns surrounding this contentious issue, simultaneously shielding the interests of employers while offering workers protection.
    SSRN Electronic Journal 04/2013; 99(2). DOI:10.2139/ssrn.2118960
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective We attempted to estimate the excess annual costs that a US private employer may attribute to employing an individual who smokes tobacco as compared to a non-smoking employee. Design Reviewing and synthesising previous literature estimating certain discrete costs associated with smoking employees, we developed a cost estimation approach that approximates the total of such costs for US employers. We examined absenteeism, presenteesim, smoking breaks, healthcare costs and pension benefits for smokers. Results Our best estimate of the annual excess cost to employ a smoker is $5816. This estimate should be taken as a general indicator of the extent of excess costs, not as a predictive point value. Conclusions Employees who smoke impose significant excess costs on private employers. The results of this study may help inform employer decisions about tobacco-related policies.
    Tobacco control 06/2013; 23(5). DOI:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050888 · 5.93 Impact Factor

  • BMJ (online) 07/2013; 347:f4294. DOI:10.1136/bmj.f4294 · 17.45 Impact Factor
Show more