An employee who is hypersensitive to cigarette smoke sued her employer for violating federal law by not enforcing the company’s smoking policy. At the time of the lawsuit the company prohibited smoking except in designated outdoor areas. However, the employee alleged that people smoked all over the office campus, such as in covered walkways and outside of buildings. The court found that the employee’s claim failed because she was not able to prove that she was disabled under the law. The court found that the employee’s hypersensitivity to cigarette smoke does not substantially limit the major life activities of breathing and seeing because it was not severe enough and she was able to participate in a range of everyday activities outside of work. The court found that even if the employee was disabled, the company reasonably accommodated her disability. The court said that the employee was not entitled to her choice of an accommodation (in this case, enforcement of the smoking policy). Instead, the law only required that the employer provide reasonable allowances in order for her to avoid or minimize her exposure to cigarette smoke. The court noted that the employee had refused a range of accommodations offered by the company, such as allowing her to work from home, suggesting that she schedule all meetings in her building, and offering a campus security vehicle to transport her between buildings. The court also ruled that the employee’s claim of a hostile work environment under the law failed because she was unable to show that she was disabled.
Chan v. Sprint Corp., 351 F.Supp.2d 1197 (D. Kan. 2005).
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.
"In the instant case, the evidence before the court shows that Plaintiff formally requested a reasonable accommodation from Defendant. Specifically, she asked that the smoking policy be enforced. Defendant responded by offering several accommodations, including suggesting that Plaintiff use sidewalks and routes on the campus that do not pass by designated smoking areas, schedule all meetings in her building or arrange to attend by teleconference, and do a percentage of work from her home by telecommuting. Defendant later granted Plaintiff's husband permission to stop his car on Sprint Parkway in order to pick her up and drop her off at the second-floor entrance to her building without being asked by campus security to move. Plaintiff's supervisor has also allowed her to work from home and begin and leave work early when she has asked to do so based on smoke exposure issues. And Defendant has offered Plaintiff the option of having a campus security vehicle transport her between buildings. The court concludes that these allowances are reasonable as a matter of law. They offer Plaintiff ways to avoid or minimize exposure to cigarette smoke. Although Plaintiff feels that telecommuting and teleconferencing would isolate her, many courts have held that telecommuting can be a reasonable accommodation."
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.
An employee who is hypersensitive to cigarette smoke sued her employer for violating federal law by not enforcing the company’s smoking policy. At the time of the lawsuit the company prohibited smoking except in designated outdoor areas. However, the employee alleged that people smoked all over the office campus, such as in covered walkways and outside of buildings. The court found that the employee’s claim failed because she was not able to prove that she was disabled under the law. The court found that the employee’s hypersensitivity to cigarette smoke does not substantially limit the major life activities of breathing and seeing because it was not severe enough and she was able to participate in a range of everyday activities outside of work. The court found that even if the employee was disabled, the company reasonably accommodated her disability. The court said that the employee was not entitled to her choice of an accommodation (in this case, enforcement of the smoking policy). Instead, the law only required that the employer provide reasonable allowances in order for her to avoid or minimize her exposure to cigarette smoke. The court noted that the employee had refused a range of accommodations offered by the company, such as allowing her to work from home, suggesting that she schedule all meetings in her building, and offering a campus security vehicle to transport her between buildings. The court also ruled that the employee’s claim of a hostile work environment under the law failed because she was unable to show that she was disabled.