Plaintiff quit her job and sued her employer for damages after her employer failed to enforce smoke free laws in common areas of the office. Lower courts held the employer liable for violating France's smoke free laws and for failing to protect its employees from hazards in the workplace. The Court of Cassation affirmed the lower courts' rulings and required the employer to pay additional damages to the former employee. In the decision, the Court of Cassation defined a key principle concerning the protection of employees from exposure to secondhand smoke in workplaces. Despite the fact the employer may have set up signs prohibiting smoking in workplaces, the court held that only the actual protection of the employee and the absence of exposure to secondhand smoke in the workplace must be taken into account. This decision directly contributed to the evolution of the French regulation concerning smoking in public places and workplaces by clarifying and strengthening the ban.
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.
Plaintiff quit her job and sued her employer for damages after her employer failed to enforce smoke free laws in common areas of the office. Lower courts held the employer liable for violating France's smoke free laws and for failing to protect its employees from hazards in the workplace. The Court of Cassation affirmed the lower courts' rulings and required the employer to pay additional damages to the former employee. In the decision, the Court of Cassation defined a key principle concerning the protection of employees from exposure to secondhand smoke in workplaces. Despite the fact the employer may have set up signs prohibiting smoking in workplaces, the court held that only the actual protection of the employee and the absence of exposure to secondhand smoke in the workplace must be taken into account. This decision directly contributed to the evolution of the French regulation concerning smoking in public places and workplaces by clarifying and strengthening the ban.