A train engineer sued his employer for failing to accommodate his asthma by providing a smoke-free work environment. The court found that the employee’s claims that he was discriminated against in violation of state and federal law could proceed. The court ruled that the employee had demonstrated enough evidence to move forward with his claim that his asthma substantially limited his major life activity of breathing. According to the court, the employee’s asthma was severe, potentially life-threatening, and could not be completely controlled with mitigating measures such as an inhaler. The court also found that the employee had provided enough evidence to question whether the employer had reasonably accommodated his asthma. The court noted that the only accommodation offered by the company was an air freshener and the fact that the company had recently implemented a no-smoking policy indicated that such a measure would not impose an undue hardship on the company.
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.
A train engineer sued his employer for failing to accommodate his asthma by providing a smoke-free work environment. The court found that the employee’s claims that he was discriminated against in violation of state and federal law could proceed. The court ruled that the employee had demonstrated enough evidence to move forward with his claim that his asthma substantially limited his major life activity of breathing. According to the court, the employee’s asthma was severe, potentially life-threatening, and could not be completely controlled with mitigating measures such as an inhaler. The court also found that the employee had provided enough evidence to question whether the employer had reasonably accommodated his asthma. The court noted that the only accommodation offered by the company was an air freshener and the fact that the company had recently implemented a no-smoking policy indicated that such a measure would not impose an undue hardship on the company.