discussion post week 5
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
American Public University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
611
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by CorporalFire11424
If employers can demonstrate objective correlations between tobacco habits, health markers (such as mortality levels, cancer rates, etc.), and insurance costs, should they be permitted to mandate tobacco-free workplaces (that is to say, workplaces that prohibit employees from using tobacco products at all...even on breaks or outside of work), and to require employees to undergo pre-hire tobacco screenings and random periodic testing as a condition of employment? What are the legal concerns here?
As an employer, requiring employees to undergo pre-hire tobacco screenings and random testing as a condition of employment, should be done with much thought and consideration. If a person is hired for a specific position which details that tobacco causes major impairment and would cause the inability to perform task, then employees can view the pre-hire screenings and random testing as being discriminatory. Legault and Pasternak (2020) noted that nicotine products can be addictive and may lead to serious health conditions. They also mentioned it can cause a decrease in workplace productivity and a vast increase in heal insurance cost. The legal concern is that it is not a federal law to have tobacco free workplaces and those decisions are left to be determined by the state. If the state has protections in place for the employees against discrimination for using products that are considered “lawful” or protections that specifically cover employees’ rights in relation to the use of tobacco products, them employers must tread lightly on creating policy that goes against the state laws. To genuinely answer the question, I would
say it depends upon the state laws how far an employer can go with pre-hire screenings and random testing without specific reasoning such as the caliber and type of work/position. The employer runs the risk of being sued for discrimination especially if state protections are in place. They can also tailor the place policies to be cover tobacco free only ding working hours as they cannot dictate what an individual does on their personal time. If employers can demonstrate objective correlations between other health markers (such as cholesterol, blood pressure, BMI, etc.) and insurance costs, should they be permitted to create policies that require new employees to undergo physical assessments and meet certain standards as a condition of employment. Could this be done short of requiring a "medical examination"?
This scenario is a bit different as some positions for the federal government do require physical assessments, physical testing, and medical examination as standard for condition of employment. I would stand with it being dependent on the nature of the position. For example, I work on a base that designed a “jungle gym” which is a simulation of a ship. If an applicant is applying for jobs such as fabric worker, welder, or sheet metal mechanic, they must be able to fit in small spaces carry a certain number of pounds
(which would be the equipment they use). They also must be able to climb holding a certain amount of weight and crawl. As these are all specifics to their position, the employer would be liable for hiring someone who cannot meet those standards, and something were to happen. Sometimes, medical examinations include physical assessments such as reading, math, and statistical knowledge is warranted and cognitive stability. In that case it would be necessary. If it is being done to screen out applicants, it could result in a discrimination suit.
Legault, M. & Pasternak, D. B. (2020). Can an Employer Implement a Nicotine-Free Hiring Policy? It Depends on State Law (US). National Law Review,
XIII (250). Retrieved from If employers can demonstrate objective correlations between tobacco habits, health markers (such as mortality levels,
cancer rates, etc.), and insurance costs, should they be permitted to mandate tobacco-free workplaces (that
is to say, workplaces that prohibit employees from using tobacco products at all...even on breaks or outside of work), and to require employees to undergo pre-hire tobacco screenings and random periodic testing as a condition of employment? What are the legal concerns here?
As an employer, requiring employees to undergo pre-hire tobacco screenings and random testing as a condition of employment, should be done with much thought and consideration. If a person is hired for a specific position which details that tobacco causes major impairment and would cause the inability to perform task, then employees can view the pre-hire screenings and random testing as being discriminatory. Legault and Pasternak (2020) noted that nicotine products can be addictive and may lead to serious health conditions. They also mentioned it can cause a decrease in workplace productivity and a vast increase in heal insurance cost. The legal concern is that it is not a federal law to have tobacco free workplaces and those decisions are left to be determined by the state. If the state has protections in place for the employees against discrimination for using products that are considered “lawful” or protections that specifically cover employees’ rights in relation to the use of tobacco products, them employers must tread lightly on creating policy that goes against the state laws. To genuinely answer the question, I would
say it depends upon the state laws how far an employer can go with pre-hire screenings and random testing without specific reasoning such as the caliber and type of work/position. The employer runs the risk of being sued for discrimination especially if state protections are in place. They can also tailor the place policies to be cover tobacco free only ding working hours as they cannot dictate what an individual does on their personal time. If employers can demonstrate objective correlations between other health markers (such as cholesterol, blood pressure, BMI, etc.) and insurance costs, should they be permitted to create policies that require new employees to undergo physical assessments and meet certain standards as a condition of employment. Could this be done short of requiring a "medical examination"?
This scenario is a bit different as some positions for the federal government do require physical assessments, physical testing, and medical examination as standard for condition of employment. I would stand with it being dependent on the nature of the position. For example, I work on a base that designed a “jungle gym” which is a simulation of a ship. If an applicant is applying for jobs such as fabric worker, welder, or sheet metal mechanic, they must be able to fit in small spaces carry a certain number of pounds
(which would be the equipment they use). They also must be able to climb holding a certain amount of weight and crawl. As these are all specifics to their position, the employer would be liable for hiring someone who cannot meet those standards, and something were to happen. Sometimes, medical examinations include physical assessments such as reading, math, and statistical knowledge is warranted and cognitive stability. In that case it would be necessary. If it is being done to screen out applicants, it could result in a discrimination suit.
Legault, M. & Pasternak, D. B. (2020). Can an Employer Implement a Nicotine-Free Hiring Policy? It Depends on State Law (US). National Law Review, XIII (250). Retrieved from https://www.natlawreview.com/article/can-employer-implement-nicotine-free-hiring-policy-it-depends-
state-law-us
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help