An employee with asthma sued his employer for failing to maintain a safe work environment by not enforcing its workplace smoking policy and for discriminating against him based on his disability. The company had a policy prohibiting smoking in the terminal buildings and locomotive cabs. The employee argued that the policy was not enforced and, as a result, he was exposed to secondhand cigarette smoke in the workplace on a daily basis, which caused at least two asthma attacks requiring emergency medical care. Because the employer did not dispute that the employee was disabled, the court assumed that he had met his burden in this area. Nevertheless, the court found that all of the employee’s claims failed. Because the employee did not provide evidence that secondhand smoke on the premises is a health hazard (such as scientific studies on the harmful effects of secondhand smoke), he was unable to show that secondhand smoke exposure created an unsafe work environment. The court found that the employee’s disability discrimination claims also failed because being ostracized and teased by his co-workers and supervisors did not constitute an adverse employment action (such as being demoted or fired). Additionally, the court found no evidence that the employer failed to enforce its smoking policy because of the employee’s disability.
Wilhelm v. CSX Transp. Inc., 169 F.Supp.2d 755 (N.D. Ohio 2001).
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.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
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.
"As in Gordon, plaintiff here has provided no evidence of the harmful effects on others of second-hand smoke. Instead, plaintiff relies solely upon the fact that CSX created its no smoking policy with the intention of improving employee welfare. Assuming this is true, the question of whether a smoke-filled workplace is not reasonably safe remains unanswered. Plaintiff must show that it is more likely than not that second-hand cigarette smoke is a health hazard. Without providing any evidence that the presence of second-hand smoke on the Walbridge premises is a health hazard, plaintiff has failed to meet this burden. The FELA has not made plaintiff's burden particularly difficult. In fact, plaintiff could have met his burden by either: 1) providing direct evidence about unsafe air-quality at the Walbridge terminal; or 2) asking me to take judicial notice of the hazardous nature of second-hand smoke. Having done neither, plaintiff has left the record without a foundation for determining that second-hand cigarette smoke at the Walbridge terminal created an unsafe work environment. Because plaintiff has failed to submit any proof that second-hand cigarette smoke has created a hazardous condition at the Walbridge terminal, I must grant CSX's summary judgment motion with respect to plaintiff's FELA claim."
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 with asthma sued his employer for failing to maintain a safe work environment by not enforcing its workplace smoking policy and for discriminating against him based on his disability. The company had a policy prohibiting smoking in the terminal buildings and locomotive cabs. The employee argued that the policy was not enforced and, as a result, he was exposed to secondhand cigarette smoke in the workplace on a daily basis, which caused at least two asthma attacks requiring emergency medical care. Because the employer did not dispute that the employee was disabled, the court assumed that he had met his burden in this area. Nevertheless, the court found that all of the employee’s claims failed. Because the employee did not provide evidence that secondhand smoke on the premises is a health hazard (such as scientific studies on the harmful effects of secondhand smoke), he was unable to show that secondhand smoke exposure created an unsafe work environment. The court found that the employee’s disability discrimination claims also failed because being ostracized and teased by his co-workers and supervisors did not constitute an adverse employment action (such as being demoted or fired). Additionally, the court found no evidence that the employer failed to enforce its smoking policy because of the employee’s disability.