The applicant, a receptionist at a mining company, suffered from an allergy to tobacco smoke and sought a transfer to another position within the company. The company granted the applicant the transfer, but the new position required that she accept a change in salary grade that would disqualify her from receiving annual incremental pay raises. The applicant asserted that, in effect, the company had limited her options to accepting the lower pay grade, returning to the smoke-filled office where she had previously worked, or resigning from the company. While the company negotiated the applicant's position, she ceased to perform her duties, and the company terminated her employment on those grounds. The applicant claimed she was wrongfully dismissed and requested a declaration that the dismissal was null and void and that the company had to reinstate her with full rights and benefits. The High Court dismissed the application on technical grounds.
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.
The applicant, a receptionist at a mining company, suffered from an allergy to tobacco smoke and sought a transfer to another position within the company. The company granted the applicant the transfer, but the new position required that she accept a change in salary grade that would disqualify her from receiving annual incremental pay raises. The applicant asserted that, in effect, the company had limited her options to accepting the lower pay grade, returning to the smoke-filled office where she had previously worked, or resigning from the company. While the company negotiated the applicant's position, she ceased to perform her duties, and the company terminated her employment on those grounds. The applicant claimed she was wrongfully dismissed and requested a declaration that the dismissal was null and void and that the company had to reinstate her with full rights and benefits. The High Court dismissed the application on technical grounds.