East News
Viewing comments for:
Mass. Employee Sues Firm for Firing Him Because He Smoked
East News • December 4, 2006
A 30-year-old Massachusetts man who has smoked for more than a decade filed a lawsuit last week against The Scotts Co., alleging the lawn and garden company violated his privacy and civil rights ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
| Subject | Posted By | Posted On |
|---|---|---|
| RE: Protected Class? | Retro Man | Dec 11, 2006, 12:10 pm |
| Fired Smoker | smoking employee | Dec 11, 2006, 11:48 am |
| Protected Class? | Cut the Crap | Dec 11, 2006, 11:20 am |
| RE: RE: Privacy At Work | Retro Man | Dec 11, 2006, 10:51 am |
| RE: Privacy At Work | john | Dec 11, 2006, 10:15 am |
| RE: Scotts Flamable Chemicals - DUH!!! | NO SMOKING AT WORK | Dec 5, 2006, 12:49 pm |
| Privacy At Work | Compman | Dec 5, 2006, 11:14 am |
| Scotts Flamable Chemicals - DUH!!! | Age Old | Dec 5, 2006, 10:51 am |
| RE: RE: How deep do you want your employer to dig? | BJH | Dec 5, 2006, 8:02 am |
| Re: Fired Smoker | Smoker with a Choice | Dec 5, 2006, 7:27 am |
| RE: RE: fired smoker | Jim | Dec 4, 2006, 4:52 pm |
| RE: fired smoker | KS | Dec 4, 2006, 3:31 pm |
| RE: fired smoker | Sean | Dec 4, 2006, 3:11 pm |
| RE: fired smoker #2 | KLS | Dec 4, 2006, 2:28 pm |
| fired smoker #2 | bob | Dec 4, 2006, 2:03 pm |
| RE: RE: How deep do you want your employer to dig? | KLS | Dec 4, 2006, 1:46 pm |
| RE: RE: How deep do you want your employer to dig? | Compman | Dec 4, 2006, 1:37 pm |
| RE: How deep do you want your employer to dig? | jay | Dec 4, 2006, 1:30 pm |
| RE: How deep do you want your employer to dig? | WhoDat | Dec 4, 2006, 1:23 pm |
| How deep do you want your employer to dig? | KLS | Dec 4, 2006, 1:18 pm |
| RE: RE: fired smoker | WhoDat | Dec 4, 2006, 1:10 pm |
| RE: fired smoker | Compman | Dec 4, 2006, 12:58 pm |
| fired smoker | bob | Dec 4, 2006, 12:49 pm |
| Back to article | ||
Subject: RE: Protected Class?
Overweight? Have high blood pressure? Any other medical condition? Scott's can choose to deny employment to you as well for the same reason.
The issue isn't whether Scott's is legally entitled to do so when it is a precondition of employment, but whether behavior that is otherwise legal can be a reason to be denied employment.
To "cut the crap" -Sure comparing smoking to eating chocolate is stupid, one is physically addicting and the other isn't.
I also agree that it is hypocritical of Scott's to promote 'healthy lifestyles' when they manufacture and distribute products that are harmful to the environment.
Maybe it's time to start a "grass roots" campaign to boycott Scott's-Miracle Gro" products.