A corrections officer sued the State Department of Correctional Service (DOCS) for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by assigning him to work in areas where smoking was allowed even though the employee had severe bronchitis with an asthmatic component. The employee had complained to DOCS for nearly 10 years and repeatedly asked to work in a smoke-free environment. In response, the DOCS required the employee to wear a series of paper and rubber masks, which did not protect him from secondhand smoke, and eventually suspended him without pay. A jury ruled in favor of the employee finding that he was disabled and that DOCS both discriminated against the employee and retaliated against him based on his disability in violation of the ADA. The jury found that the employee’s disability substantially impaired his major life activity of working and that DOCS had not reasonably accommodated him. The jury awarded the employee more than $400,000 in damages, which was later reduced to $300,000 by the court.
The court of appeals found there was insufficient evidence that the employee was substantially impaired in the major life activity of working because the employee was not precluded from an entire class of jobs but only from working as a corrections officer in his area. The appeals court also found that there was not enough evidence of off-the-job breathing problems to find a substantial limitation of the major life activity of breathing. However, the court of appeals upheld the lower court’s decision based solely on the finding that the employee was retaliated against in violation of the ADA. The court also upheld the award of damages and the order for reinstatement and back pay.
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.
An individual or organization may seek civil damages against a tobacco company based on the claim that the use of tobacco products causes disease or death. Some of these cases will relate to general tobacco products, while others will relate to specific subcategories of tobacco products--for example, light or low products, menthol or other flavored products. Additionally, there may be cases relating to exposure to secondhand smoke.
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.
The court might consider procedural matters without touching the merits of the case. These might include: improper joinder, when third parties, such as Health NGOs or government officials, seek to become parties to the suit; lack of standing, where a plaintiff fails to meet the minimum requirements to bring suit; lack of personal jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction to rule over the defendant; or lack of subject matter jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction over the issue at suit.
A corrections officer sued the State Department of Correctional Service (DOCS) for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by assigning him to work in areas where smoking was allowed even though the employee had severe bronchitis with an asthmatic component. The employee had complained to DOCS for nearly 10 years and repeatedly asked to work in a smoke-free environment. In response, the DOCS required the employee to wear a series of paper and rubber masks, which did not protect him from secondhand smoke, and eventually suspended him without pay. A jury ruled in favor of the employee finding that he was disabled and that DOCS both discriminated against the employee and retaliated against him based on his disability in violation of the ADA. The jury found that the employee’s disability substantially impaired his major life activity of working and that DOCS had not reasonably accommodated him. The jury awarded the employee more than $400,000 in damages, which was later reduced to $300,000 by the court.
The court of appeals found there was insufficient evidence that the employee was substantially impaired in the major life activity of working because the employee was not precluded from an entire class of jobs but only from working as a corrections officer in his area. The appeals court also found that there was not enough evidence of off-the-job breathing problems to find a substantial limitation of the major life activity of breathing. However, the court of appeals upheld the lower court’s decision based solely on the finding that the employee was retaliated against in violation of the ADA. The court also upheld the award of damages and the order for reinstatement and back pay.