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 allergic to cigarette smoke sued her employer asking that the company prohibit smoking in the work environment. Based on a variety of evidence, including an affidavit from a former Surgeon General, this 1976 court decision found that cigarette smoke is toxic and damaging to the health not only of smokers but also to nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke. The court noted that the employee asked for “nothing more than to be able to breathe the air in its clear and natural state.” The court ordered the company to prohibit smoking in work areas in order to remedy the unsafe work environment.