A corrections officer with asthma sued her employer for discrimination based on her disability by not providing her with a smoke-free work environment. The employee repeatedly asked for a smoke-free work environment and argued that she could have been transferred to an area of the facility that was completely smoke-free but she was not. The court found that all of the officer’s claims could proceed because there were factual questions that should be resolved by a jury. Specifically, the court found that there was sufficient evidence that a jury could find that (1) the employee was disabled under federal law because her asthma substantially limited the major life activity of breathing (but not sleeping, walking, or working); (2) the employee was qualified to do the job; (3) the employer may have failed to reasonably accommodate the officer or forced her to resign based on the negative impact of the working conditions on her health.
Bond v. Sheahan, 152 F. Supp. 2d 1055 (N.D. Ill. 2001).
United States
Jul 19, 2001
U.S. District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
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.
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
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"First, Plaintiff has presented ample evidence indicating that she made numerous requests, both directly and indirectly, to Defendant to be placed in a smoke-free work environment because of her asthma. Although Ms. Bond never stated the magic words "reasonable accommodation", the Court believes there is little more Ms. Bond could have done to inform Defendant that she required an accommodation for her asthma. See Branson v. West, No. 97 C 3538, 1999 WL 311717, at * 13 (N.D.Ill. May 11, 1999) ("[A]n employee is not required to use the magic words `reasonable accommodation' ..."); Bultemeyer v. Fort Wayne Community Schools, 100 F.3d 1281, 1285 (7th Cir.1996) ("[I]f it appears that the employee may need an accommodation but doesn't know how to ask for it, the employer should do what it can to help."). The Court also finds that a rational jury could determine that Defendant failed to reasonably accommodate Ms. Bond. While Defendant provides evidence of taking at least three measures to accommodate Ms. Bond, a factfinder could conclude that these so-called measures were not reasonable accommodations.
First, on May 11, 1993, Defendant administratively transferred Ms. Bond from her records position in Division V to a position in Division VIII, which Defendant argues is the only "smoke-free" area at the CCDOC. Defendant claims that the purpose of this transfer was to grant Ms. Bond's request of working in a smoke-free environment. Second, after Plaintiff successfully grieved her transfer back to the records department in Division V, Defendant placed Ms. Bond on the midnight shift, so that she would be working with fewer people, and therefore, around fewer people smoking."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
A corrections officer with asthma sued her employer for discrimination based on her disability by not providing her with a smoke-free work environment. The employee repeatedly asked for a smoke-free work environment and argued that she could have been transferred to an area of the facility that was completely smoke-free but she was not. The court found that all of the officer’s claims could proceed because there were factual questions that should be resolved by a jury. Specifically, the court found that there was sufficient evidence that a jury could find that (1) the employee was disabled under federal law because her asthma substantially limited the major life activity of breathing (but not sleeping, walking, or working); (2) the employee was qualified to do the job; (3) the employer may have failed to reasonably accommodate the officer or forced her to resign based on the negative impact of the working conditions on her health.