TOBACCO CONTROL LAWS

Meeuwissen v. Hilton Hotels of Australia Pty Ltd.

In a prior judgment, the Commission found that Hilton Hotels of Australia had discriminated against Sue Meeuwissen and Neil Francey under section 103(1)(b)(i) of the Disability Discrimination Act by permitting smoking in their premises (a nightclub), causing the complainants difficulty breathing in such an environment. Ms Meeuwissen had cystic fibrosis - her doctor had recommended that she live in a smoke-free environment. In the earlier judgment, the Commission had ordered that the respondent pay the complainants damages, but had requested written submissions on possible declarations that it could make for preventing further discrimination under section 103(1)(b). (See: Francey v Hilton Hotels of Australia Pty Ltd [1997] HREOCA 56.)

The Commission concluded that all but one of the options available to it were not viable (separation of smokers and non-smokers; separate smoking and non-smoking environments within the venue; and the use of ventilation-filtration systems). Only a complete ban on smoking in entertainment venues would prevent further discrimination towards disabled non-smokers. However, the Commission declined to make such a declaration on the basis that momentum was building to ban smoking in public entertainment venues, and it was inappropriate to single out this venue for an earlier ban.

DOWNLOAD DOCUMENT

Meeuwissen v Hilton Hotels of Australia, Nos. H97/50 & H97/51, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (2000).

  • Australia
  • Mar 10, 2000
  • Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
View Case History

Parties

Plaintiff

  • Neil Francey
  • Sue Meeuwissen

Defendant Hilton Hotels of Australia

Legislation Cited

Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (NSW)

Smoking Regulation Act 1997 (NSW)

Related Documents

None

Type of Litigation

Enforcement Action by a Private Individual or Private Entity
Some jurisdictions allow an individual or organization to initiate an action against another private party who is not following a particular law. For example, a person may sue a restaurant that allows smoking despite a smoke free law. If the plaintiff is claiming the violation of the law caused physical harm, this may also be a personal injury case.

Tobacco Control Topics

Smoke Free Measures
Measures to reduce or eliminate exposure to tobacco smoke. (See FCTC Art. 8)

Substantive Issues

Right to Equal Protection
A violation of the right to equal protection under the law, or another form of discrimination. The industry may claim that regulations discriminate against tobacco companies or tobacco products. Smokers may claim that addiction is a health condition, so regulations discriminate against them based on their health condition. Facilities subject to smoke free laws may claim that smoke free (SF) exceptions (e.g., hotel rooms, mental hospitals, etc.) unfairly discriminate against SF businesses because the law should apply to all locations equally.
Right to a Healthy and Safe Environment
A violation of the right to live in a safe and healthy environment.
Employment and Disability Law Violation
A claim against an employer involving a person who is harmed by secondhand smoke exposure in the workplace. For example, an employee with asthma may sue their employer for failing to protect them from exposure to secondhand smoke in the office or an employee with cancer may sue for workers’ compensation benefits. This may also include claims for workers' compensation. Disability laws also may protect customers who are not able to patronize a business filled with smoky air because of their disability.

Type of Tobacco Product

None

1400 I Street N.W.,
Suite 1200,
Washington, DC 20005
United States of America

Phone: (202) 296-5469

Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is a BBB-accredited charity and a
Guidestar Exchange Gold Participant.

© 2024 Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids | Trademarks | Copyright | Privacy

Site created and maintained by