Hacker News Reader

Comment by ivirshup | Hacker News Reader

How is this not discriminatory?

Not all discrimination is illegal. Hiring people who don't know how to code for a software job is also discriminatory, but not illegal.

https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/smallbusiness/faq/who_is_prot...

>Applicants, employees and former employees are protected from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, age (40 or older), disability and genetic information (including family medical history).

"discriminating" is not in itself unlawful. There's a small list of things you can't discriminate for.

Unhealthy lifestyles like smoking or tabs instead of spaces isn't on that list.

Not sure how I feel about this. It does feel quite wrong. But it also has a practical, logical side to it. Ignore being human for a moment: smoking is proven to weaken physical ability. Why do I want to hitch my wagon to a team that's slowly crippling itself?

"Why do I want to hitch my wagon to a team that's slowly crippling itself?"

The answer is; you probably are unknowingly, and everything is just fine.

Not sure how I feel about this. It does feel quite wrong.

Agreed. You can get into pretty weird cases... hiring athletic employees is generally a positive for the company, unless they also mountain bike/ski/some other riskier sport. How far will an employer go to ensure the lowest possible insurance premiums?

Or, marital status (no federal protection)... married people generally have better mortality rates. Will employers start selecting against single/unmarried candidates?

In the US, I thought it was already either illegal or legally risky for an employer to ask a candidate about their marriage status.

State law dictates the legality. There is no federal protection. About half the states list marital status as a protected class.

Marital status is not a protected class under federal law, but almost all states have adopted it as such under state law.

It's certainly discriminatory. The question is if it's legal to discriminate in this way or if nicotine use is a protected class. That they're choosing to only implement this in some states may indicate that they're not totally confident.

I’m concerned it’s creating unnecessary hardships. Quitting smoking is hard. If you’ve lost a job and need a new job then stressing over U-Haul’s no-nicotine policy - or losing out on a job that you’re otherwise qualified for only because of your nicotine habit - then I imagine the added stress and disappointment - and hit to one’s ego - might drive someone to smoke more - or adopt other unhealthy habits like drinking.

Also, I’d be very surprised if significant numbers of people give up not just smoking, but all forms of nicotine, just to get a job at U-Haul. They’re probably missing out on great talent this way.

...now, if they instead would hire a smoker on the condition they complete a company-funded stop-smoking treatment course, then that’s different. I admit I haven’t read the article so I don’t know if that was mentioned.

Unless this veers into mental health or Native Americans with a legitimate religious use, yeah, no protected class here.

It may also indicate that they think this will reduce their labor pool too much in some states.

Smoking anything has no relation to protected class status.

The question is if they'd qualify as Disabled under the ADA as addictions can qualify as a disability.

It's quite ridiculous if that's the case. Someone getting him or herself willingly into an addiction (especially nicotine) should not constitute a "disability". Unless they're classified as mentally disabled since they couldn't judge right from wrong to begin with, in which case they have other issues to worry about.

So if I get drunk and drive into a tree and can't work anymore because my injuries were too severe, I should be able to get disability, but if I managed to get hooked on an addictive substance then I can't even be allowed to manage my addiction symptoms?

Only thing ridiculous here is your short-sightedness.

Perhaps, getting drunk is a deliberate decision in general. People should face the consequences of such (and we already see it).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com