TOBACCO CONTROL LAWS

Francey v. Hilton Hotels of Australia Pty Ltd.

The complainants, Mr Francey and Ms Meeuwissen, alleged that they had been discriminated against on the grounds of disability by the defendant because a nightclub within its hotel was not smoke-free. Ms Meeuwissen had cystic fibrosis - her doctor recommended that she avoid environmental tobacco smoke. On 18 March 1995 she was accompanied by Mr Francey to a nightclub within the hotel but they were forced to leave due to environmental tobacco smoke causing Ms Meeuwissen to become asthmatic.

The Commission upheld the claim, finding that the defendant had unlawfully discriminated against the complainants on the grounds of disability (and status as an associate of a person with a disability), because failing to provide a smoke-free environment effectively denied the complainants access to the premises and to goods and services. The Commission ordered that the defendant pay the complainants damages, and requested further written submissions on the other orders that it should make. For the further decision, see: Meeuwissen v. Hilton Hotels of Australia Pty Ltd.

DOWNLOAD DOCUMENT

Francey v Hilton Hotels of Australia Pty Ltd [1997] HREOCA 56 (25 September 1997)

  • Australia
  • Sep 25, 1997
  • Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
View Case History

Parties

Plaintiff

  • Neil Francey
  • Sue Meeuwissen

Defendant Hilton Hotels of Australia Pty Ltd

Legislation Cited

Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (NSW)

Smoking Regulation Act 1997 (NSW)

Related Documents

None

Type of Litigation

None

Tobacco Control Topics

Smoke Free Measures
Measures to reduce or eliminate exposure to tobacco smoke. (See FCTC Art. 8)

Substantive Issues

Right to Equal Protection
A violation of the right to equal protection under the law, or another form of discrimination. The industry may claim that regulations discriminate against tobacco companies or tobacco products. Smokers may claim that addiction is a health condition, so regulations discriminate against them based on their health condition. Facilities subject to smoke free laws may claim that smoke free (SF) exceptions (e.g., hotel rooms, mental hospitals, etc.) unfairly discriminate against SF businesses because the law should apply to all locations equally.
Right to a Healthy and Safe Environment
A violation of the right to live in a safe and healthy environment.
Employment and Disability Law Violation
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

1400 I Street N.W.,
Suite 1200,
Washington, DC 20005
United States of America

Phone: (202) 296-5469

Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is a BBB-accredited charity and a
Guidestar Exchange Gold Participant.

© 2025 Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids | Trademarks | Copyright | Privacy

Site created and maintained by