A corrections officer with asthma sued her employer for discrimination based on her disability by not providing her with a smoke-free work environment. The employee repeatedly asked for a smoke-free work environment and argued that she could have been transferred to an area of the facility that was completely smoke-free but she was not. The court found that all of the officer’s claims could proceed because there were factual questions that should be resolved by a jury. Specifically, the court found that there was sufficient evidence that a jury could find that (1) the employee was disabled under federal law because her asthma substantially limited the major life activity of breathing (but not sleeping, walking, or working); (2) the employee was qualified to do the job; (3) the employer may have failed to reasonably accommodate the officer or forced her to resign based on the negative impact of the working conditions on her health.
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 corrections officer with asthma sued her employer for discrimination based on her disability by not providing her with a smoke-free work environment. The employee repeatedly asked for a smoke-free work environment and argued that she could have been transferred to an area of the facility that was completely smoke-free but she was not. The court found that all of the officer’s claims could proceed because there were factual questions that should be resolved by a jury. Specifically, the court found that there was sufficient evidence that a jury could find that (1) the employee was disabled under federal law because her asthma substantially limited the major life activity of breathing (but not sleeping, walking, or working); (2) the employee was qualified to do the job; (3) the employer may have failed to reasonably accommodate the officer or forced her to resign based on the negative impact of the working conditions on her health.