Thursday, November 30, 2006


Mike Hofman, the executive editor at Inc. magazine, posted an item on the magazine's blog about a Massachusetts man who sued Scotts lawncare company after he was fired after failing a drug test that showed nicotine in his system...even though he didn't smoke on the job. (Read the item at

It reminded me of a Sound Off question I posed to readers back in January 2005, shortly after Weyco, an employee-benefits company in Michigan, announced it would begin testing its employees for nicotine use. Most of my readers were outraged. You can read their unedited responses at if you scroll down the page.

If you'd like to post a comment on the current case that's in Mike's blog item or written about in more detail at, or about the issue of employers testing employees for nicotine use in general, you can click on "comments" below.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I have read the comments posted on the last anti-smoker hiring policy post, and I have to say I amazed that someone had the notion to post a comment that said smoking was not a health risk.Perhaps that was tongue in cheek... maybe he dips snuff? (Cheek... get it?)

I CAN tell you that Workers Comp studies have shown that smokers file many more claims. I would not hire a smoker, ever.

I would not test a worker either-- I think these are 2 different issues. and if I hired non smokers, I might let them know that was a criterion-- or I might not. (If they have never smoked, why discuss it at all?)

I did not take the time to read the most recent case, but I think testing is a slippery slope. Refusing to hire smokers is not.