A couple of weeks ago, we looked at the injustice of vapers and pouch users paying similar insurance premiums as smokers. Recently on X, I came across something that is even more unfair: US hospitals doing drug tests for nicotine and firing people for being smokers.
It seems so insane that it can’t be true, right? So, let’s take a look at the evidence.
Do people get fired for smoking?
Based on my research, this situation mainly exists in the US. Specifically, it happens in US states without “smoker protection” or “lawful off‑duty conduct” laws. The American Lung Association notes that 29 states plus D.C. have some form of “smoker protection” law. This article points out many of them.
The states without these protections are:
- Alabama
- Alaska
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- Delaware
- Florida
- Georgia
- Hawaii
- Idaho
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Nebraska
- Ohio
- Pennsylvania
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- Wyoming
Legal guides in those regions state that employers are free to fire smokers or make staying on in the job conditional on quitting smoking.
Examples of cases where employees were fired
Here are a few interesting cases where employees lost their jobs due to testing for nicotine.
- In 2006, CBS News reported on a man fired from a lawn care job because he tested positive for nicotine. He attempted to sue the company, but his case was dismissed.
- In 2020, the LA Times reported that the Cleveland Clinic hospital banned smoking on its campus. They screened potential new hires for nicotine, and if there were positive findings, they refused employment. It’s worth noting that people who were already employed were not subject to these measures.
- ABC News reported in 2009 that a Michigan health‑benefits company reportedly told employees to quit smoking “even at home” or risk being fired. The same article notes that Alaska Airlines screens job applicants for nicotine and will not hire those who test positive.
In a UK context, these sorts of actions are harder to justify. However, I did come across an interesting case involving Nestle in Staffordshire, where a factory worker vaped in a disabled toilet, setting off a smoke alarm. In March this year, an employment tribunal found that his dismissal was unfair, awarding him £22,000.
So, why do companies enforce these policies?
Employers justify these strict policies in a number of different ways. Some of the businesses cite health and wellness reasons, stating they want a healthier workforce. They also argue that hiring smokers could influence other staff members to smoke. In health care organisations, these policies are framed as part of an overall public health vision, and say their employees should model desired behaviours.
Other employers go even further, suggesting that excluding smokers helps enforce their company's “philosophy” and even cite the policies as a way to “denormalise” smoking. These reasons are slightly wooly and frankly pretentious. However, there are other justifications that seem more grounded.
Firstly, there is a productivity argument that holds some water. In some situations, smokers take more frequent or longer breaks. Additionally, poorer health could mean a higher number of sick days.
Perhaps the most telling reason of all is that health care and insurance costs for smokers are considerably higher. In countries without a national healthcare system, such as the US, this essentially makes smokers more expensive to higher when the overall package is factored in.
Final thoughts
Look through the flowery language about culture and mission, and there are a few reasons why smokers are being prejudiced against in this way. Firstly, some states have weak employment laws that let capital exploit labour. Secondly, smokers cost more to employ. When taken together, these practices benefit businesses.
Some might argue that smoking is a choice, and therefore, these policies are acceptable. However, you could also argue that being overweight is a choice, but that being refused a job or threatened with being fired unless you got down to an acceptable size is unacceptable.
