Law, Business and Society 11th Edition by Tony McAdams

Exercise 52

Scott Rodrigues was fired in 2006 by The Scotts Company, the lawn care giant, because a required drug test revealed nicotine in his urine. Company policy forbade employee smoking both on and off the job. Scotts announced in 2005 that it would no longer hire smokers, and it gave its employees one year to comply with the new policy, a policy designed to improve employee wellness and reduce company health care costs. Rodrigues was a pack-a-day smoker when he was hired. He was aware of the no-smoking policy, and he had been warned to quit when a supervisor saw a pack of cigarettes on the dashboard of his car. Rodrigues acknowledged his smoking habit, but said he was trying to quit smoking when he was fired. Rodrigues complained that the company had not offered to help him quit smoking. The Scotts' plan does, however, pay for smoking cessation programs for its employees. Scotts said they were not interested in influencing workers' behavior in their free time, except in the case of smoking. Rodrigues decided to file suit against Scotts because:
What's to make them stop at just cigarettes If they're a Republican company, can they try and figure out who you vote for and if you vote for the Democrats, they'll fire you ...
According to the American Lung Association's Tobacco Policy Project/State Legislated Actions on Tobacco Issues (SLATI), as of 2013, 29 states and the District of Columbia have laws protecting smokers from adverse employment action based bn smoking tobacco. While Massachusetts law does not provide explicit shelter for smokers, it offers statutory protection from "unreasonable, substantial, or serious interference" with an individual's privacy. Rodrigues brought suit against the Scotts Company claiming, among other things, invasion of privacy.
Should employers be able to fire employees who smoke off the job Explain. See Rodrigues v. the Scotts Company, 639 F.Supp.2d 131 (D. Mass 2009).
Managing Lawsuits Managers traditionally have balanced multiple responsibilities, but in recent years the law has added complex, sometimes daunting expectations. Addressing and mitigating the risk of employment-related lawsuits, like Rodrigues's, has become an important consideration in management decision making. As union strength has declined (see Chapter 14), government regulations and court decisions have arguably broadened employee rights. These increased legal protections, a volatile economy, downsizing, weakened employer-employee loyalty, and other forces have contributed to higher levels of employee litigation.