TOBACCO CONTROL LAWS

Gupton v. Commonwealth of Virginia

An employee sued the state agency where she worked for failing to provide her with a smoke-free workplace. She argued that the agency violated the federal Rehabilitation Act, a law prohibiting discrimination based on a person’s disability. After complaining about her allergy to tobacco smoke, the employee was assigned to a cubicle at least sixty feet from the nearest smoking area. The employee said she was still affected by the smoke. The court of appeals ruled that the employee did not establish that she was disabled under the federal law because her allergy to tobacco smoke did not substantially limit the major life activity of working. The court found that the employee did not present any evidence that her allergy prevented her from generally obtaining jobs in her field if they were smoke-free. The appeals court also agreed with the lower court that the employee’s claims for violation of due process and equal protection failed.

Gupton v. Com. of Va., 14 F.3d 203 (4th Cir. 1994).

  • United States
  • Jan 13, 1994
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Download Document

Parties

Plaintiff Betty Gupton

Defendant

  • Commonwealth of Virginia
  • Ray D. Pethel
  • William Bryant

Legislation Cited

Rehabilitation Act of 1973

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 Procedural Due Process
A violation of the right to procedural fairness. For example, a party may claim that a government agency did not consult with public or stakeholders when issuing regulations.
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

View Limitations
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.

© 2025 Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids | Trademarks | Copyright | Privacy

Site created and maintained by