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 civilian employee of the United States Army claimed that the Army’s failure to provide him with a completely smoke-free work environment violated the federal Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination against disabled individuals. The court of appeals agreed with the lower court that the employee’s claim failed. The court found that the employee, who is asthmatic, is “handicapped” under the law. However, the court found that the employee was not a “qualified handicapped person” because there was no way for the Army to reasonably accommodate him. The only way to accommodate the employee was to completely ban smoking throughout the establishment. However, army regulations in effect at the time of the lawsuit balanced the interests of smokers and non-smokers. Therefore, the employee’s claims of discrimination and wrongful discharge failed.