Smoking On The Job:
What The Law Really Says

Both employers and employees need to know the laws applicable to smoking on the job. For individualized legal advice tailored to your situation, contact a lawyer. Let's start with basic facts.

Cigarettes contain and emit large quantities of toxic chemical emissions including carbon monoxide. They are inherently dangerous. The pertinent legal adjective is "ultrahazardous." The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Reducing the Health Consequences of Smoking: 25 Years of Progress: a Report of the Surgeon General, Publication CDC 89-8411, Table 7, pp 86-87 (1989), lists examples of deleterious ingredients including but not limited to:

acetaldehyde (1.4+ mg)arsenic (500+ ng)benzo(a)pyrene (.1+ ng)
cadmium (1,300+ ng)crotonaldehyde (.2+ µg)chromium (1,000+ ng)
ethylcarbamate 310+ ng)formaldehyde (1.6+ µg)hydrazine (14+ ng)
lead (8+ µg)nickel (2,000+ ng)radioactive polonium (.2+ Pci)

Due to cigarettes' inherently deleterious nature and ingredients, they, when lit, emit deleterious emissions. The Department of Health, Education and Welfare (DHEW), Smoking and Health: Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service, PHS Pub 1103, Table 4, p 60 (1964), lists examples of cigarettes' deleterious emissions compared to the chemicals' "speed limits" (official term, "threshold limit values" [TLV's] set in the toxic chemical regulation 29 CFR § 1910.1000, available at your local library). It is due to cigarettes excess quantities rendering them "ultrahazardous" that deaths result. Notice the emissions vs the "speed limits" [TLV's]:

Chemical
Quantity
TLV
acetaldehyde 3,200 ppm 200.0 ppm
acrolein 150 ppm     0.5 ppm
ammonia 300 ppm 150.0 ppm
carbon monoxide 42,000 ppm 100.0 ppm
formaldehyde 30 ppm     5.0 ppm
hydrogen cyanide 1,600 ppm   10.0 ppm
hydrogen sulfide 40 ppm   20.0 ppm
methyl chloride 1,200 ppm 100.0 ppm
nitrogen dioxide 250 ppm     5.0 ppm

Obviously, as "ultrahazardous," cigarettes' toxic chemicals far exceed the "Threshold Limit Values." Wherefore injuries and deaths are common, foreseeable, "natural and probable consequences." TTS exposure causes Increased Risk of Death. This violates people's right to "fresh and pure air."

Court cases such as Todd v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp, 924 F Supp 59 (WD La, 9 May 1996), admit that tobacco dangerousness is obvious. Perez v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp, 967 F Supp 920 (SD Texas, 4 June 1997), said tobacco is inherently dangerous and so known.

There is also the issue, or duty, of warning nonsmokers of the danger of toxic tobacco smoke (TTS), involuntary smoking, second-hand smoke, Shaw v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp, 973 F Supp 539 (D Md, 1997) (citing issues of negligent misrepresentation and failure to warn; and intentional misrepresentation), and Wolpin v Philip Morris, Inc, 974 F Supp 1465; 1997 US Dist LEXIS 12915; 1997 WL 535218 (D SD Fla, 1997).

The case of Banzhaf v Federal Communications Commission, 132 US App DC 14, 29; 405 F2d 1082, 1097 (1968) cert den 396 US 842 (1969) upheld the concept of cigarettes' deleteriousness:
"The danger cigarettes . . . pose to health is, among others, a danger to life itself . . . a danger inherent in the normal use of the product, not one merely associated with its abuse or dependent on intervening fortuitous events. It threatens a substantial body of the population, not merely a peculiarly susceptible fringe group."

The TLV's are law. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 USC § 651 - § 678 forbids hazards. Implementing regulations such as 29 CFR § 1910.1000 provide specific examples of emissions hazards such as carbon monoxide (limit of 50 parts per million = the "TLV"). An employer has a duty to prevent and suppress hazardous conduct by employees. National Realty and Construction Co, Inc v Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, 160 US App DC 133, 141; 489 F2d 1257, 1266, n 36 (CADC, 1973).

The cited 29 USC § 651 - § 678 forbids behaviors and hazards (meaning, substances concerning which regular exposure foreseeably leads to "material impairment of [employee] health").

TTS is an "extraordinary hazard," see definition: "One not commonly associated with a job or undertaking. If hazards are increased by what other employees do, and injured employee has no part in increasing them, they are 'extraordinary.'" Stone v Howe, 92 N.H. 425, 32 A.2d 484, 487."—Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed (St. Paul: West Publishing Co, 1979), p 527. TS is also an "extraordinary risk," "one lying outside of the sphere of the normal, arising out of conditions not usual in the business. It is one which is not normally and and necessarily incident to the employment. It is one which may be obviated by the exercise of reasonable care by the employer." Black's Law Dict., supra, p. 527.

The smoker of cigarettes is constantly exposed to levels of carbon monoxide in the range of 500 to 1,500 parts per million when he or she inhales cigarette smoke. See G. H. Miller, "The filter cigarette controversy," 72 J Indiana St Med Assoc (#12) 903-905 (Dec 1979). This quantity exceeds the legal TLV limit, hence, renders smoking illegal without further ado.

By law, employers must obey

  • (a) the common law duty to provide "fresh and pure air" and the "duty of aid" and

  • (b) both the
    • (i) general words of the safety law, the "general duty clause,"

    • (ii) and the specific numerics.

    • An employer who said, 'we'll obey the number, not the general rule' was found guilty of noncompliance when a Detroit-area worker was killed on the job as a result. That case title is International Union, UAW v General Dynamics Land Systems Division, 259 US App DC 369; 815 F2d 1570 (1987) cert den 484 US 976; 108 S Ct 485; 98 L Ed 2d 484 (1987).

    The employer was also charged criminally in Michigan courts, People v General Dynamics Land Sys Div, 175 Mich App 701; 438 NW2d 359 (1989) lv app den 435 Mich 860 (1990).

    The law provides that the solution to cigarette-caused harm is to occur up-front, in advance, BEFORE endangerment happens. Case law such as Gitlow v New York, 268 US 652; 45 S Ct 625; 69 L Ed 1138 (1925), shows that even with mere words "inimical to the public welfare," the law mandates to "suppress the threatened danger in its incipiency," not await the full-blown harm. (That is why cigarette advertising is illegal, to prevent the hazard at the "incipiency").

    Compliance with 29 CFR § 1910.1000 TLV's is mandatory, not optional. Relative to smoking, an employer must comply with the "duty to prevent and suppress" a hazard such as carbon monoxide, since "the detrimental effects of cigarette smoking on health are beyond controversy." Larus and Brother Co v Federal Communications Commission, 447 F2d 876, (CA 4, 1971). Of course, as you know, compliance is rare, not the norm! (Compliance with the "fresh and pure air" duty is rarely called that, but "employer policy"—as though safety is an employer option, revocable at will!)

    When an employer fails to discharge an employee using drugs (tobacco is a drug), and a "natural and probable consequence" such as death results, criminal charges are foreseeable, see People v Hegedus, 432 Mich 598; 443 NW2d 127 (1989); People v Chicago Magnet Wire Corp, 126 Ill 2d 356; 128 Ill Dec 517; 534 NE2d 962 (1989) cert denied sub nom Asta v Illinois, 493 U.S. 809; 110 S Ct 52; 107 L Ed 2d 21 (1989) (and wrongful death lawsuits).

    You should also check your area laws. For example, in Michigan, manufacture, giveaway, and sale of cigarettes is illegal by law. Any use of illegal cigarettes is obvious misconduct. Precedents show that no court should aid a misconduct-committing party, e.g., BTC v Norton CMC, 25 F Supp 968, 969 (1938); and Buckman v HMA, 190 Or 154; 223 P2d 172, 175 (1950). "No one may take advantage of his own wrong," Stephenson v Golden, 279 Mich 710, 737; 276 NW 848 (1938). "[H]e who does the first wrong is answerable for all the consequent damages," Scott v Shephard, 96 Eng Rep 525, 526 (1773).

    Federal case law is to the same effect, e.g., Service v Dulles, 354 US 363; 77 S Ct 1152; 1 L Ed 2d 1403 (1957) and Glus v Eastern District Terminal, 359 US 231, 232; 79 S Ct 760, 762; 3 L Ed 2d 770, 772 (1959). Such precedents show that a party cannot rely on its own wrongdoing as a defense, here, employers' aiding and abetting the illegal manufacture and sales, by aiding and abetting the on-the-job use of the illegal cigarettes.

    In addition, in most if not all jurisdictions, most smoking arises from children having been illegally sold cigarettes. But for that illegality, there would be essentially no smoking on the job. The condition precedent for smoking (lawful sales in the first place) typically does not exist.

    “Quod ab initio non valet in tractu temporis non convalescet.” That which is bad in its commencement improves not by lapse of time. “Quod initio non valet, tractu temporis non valet.” A thing void in the beginning does not become valid by lapse of time.—Black's Law Dictionary (St. Paul: West Pub, 5th ed, 1979), pp 1126-1127.

    Smoking is hazardous. That is why there are laws against sales to minors, and against the illegal levels of emissions. Smokers are commonly foreseeably dangerous to themselves, and to others, and to property, e.g., by fires.

      "Working and smoking don't mix," says Dr. William A. Weis, in 60 Personnel Journal (#3) 164 (March 1981). See also The Smoke-Free Workplace by William L. Weis and Bruce W. Miller (NY: Prometheus Books, 1985), p 34 ("smokers waste 30 minutes a day. . . . When time lost to smoking is combined with time lost to absenteeism, the average smoker loses 17 days per year." Multiply that by the rate of pay to determine loss.)

    See also "Business Costs in Smoke-Filled Environments" (June 2004), citing 21 references on smoking related absenteeism and lost productivity, and increased maintenance and insurance rates.

    Smokers' Job Accidents
    Data exists "on the meaning of . . . smoking in connection with the incidence of accidents. The incidence of injuries rises as distinctly in the group of smokers as does the incidence of diseases of the repiratory pathways."

    "The results show a prevalence of smokers in the group of injured workers."

    Notice various reasons that "smoking causes injuries due to the loss of attention and to the occupation of hands or to the irritation of eyes, to the cough, etc., or . . . because the prohibition of smoking during some work operations is not strictly obeyed."—V. Engler, et al., "Work Injuries and Smoking," 35 Industrial Med and Surgery (#10) 880-881 (Oct 1966).

    “Smoking . . . contributes to the cause of vehicular accidents,” says U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory (USAARL) Report No. 86-13, “Smoking and Soldier Performance,” by Frederick N. Dyer, Ph.D. (Fort Rucker, AL) (June 1986), p 7. [Click here for more from that Report.]

    In the 1980 Transactions of the Society of Actuaries, Table 9, p. 200, shows the smoker death rate in “Motor vehicle accidents” as 2.6 times higher than the nonsmoker rate.

    The high smoker rate of deviant behavior, combined with the brain damage caused by smoking, makes such facts foreseeable. For example, see the article, “Human Factors in Highway Safety,” by Ross A. McFarland, Ph.D., and Roland C. Moore, Ph.D., in The New Engl. J. of Med., Vol. 256(17), pp. 792-799, 25 April 1957. At 795, “although superior intelligence per se is no guarantee of safe driving, a certain minimum mental ability is required by the nature and complexity of the driving situation. As brought out in one ‘job analysis' of driving, to avoid accidents, drivers must react within such brief intervals that factors of foresight, planning and the appreciation of hazards are of special importance. Moreover, more continuous attention is required of the motor-vehicle driver from moment to moment than of the operator of any other type of transportation equipment.” At 794, data is presented that is clearly insightful concerning smokers, “‘a man drives as he lives’ ––that is, if he makes mistakes in adjustment to the personal and social demands of living, he will make repeated errors in his driving.”

    Such data provides insight on smoking and driving. Brain damage produces symptoms such as an impaired orientation for time, “for place,” “impairment of learning, comprehension, and judgment . . . with inability to think on higher conceptual levels and to plan,” and “Impairment ot inner reality and ethical controls,” noted by James C. Coleman, Ph.D., in Abnormal Psychology and Modern Life (Scott, Foresman & Co., 5th ed., 1976), p. 461. The DSM-III cites symptoms that appear early (after only “at least several weeks”) in smokers, for example, “irritability,” “difficulty concentrating,” “restlessness,” and “drowsiness,” among others.

    Thus there is “the well-established association between smoking and drinking and between drinking and automobile accidents,” says Dr. Joseph Stokes III, in The New Engl. J. of Med., Vol. 308(7), p. 393, 17 Feb 1983.

    Note the scientific medical data measuring the increase in driving fatalities caused by smoking. TheWaller study, for example, found that smokers with less than 0.02% BAC experienced 3.16 times more fatal auto wrecks than nonsmokers with the same blood alcohol content. Perhaps even more startling was the finding that nonsmokers with 0.02-0.09% BAC had only 1.79 times more fatal wrecks than nonsmokers with less than 0.02% BAC. What that means is that smokers with little or no alcohol in the blood are nearly twice as likely to cause highway fatalities as nonsmokers with a moderate amount of alcohol in the blood. Reference Julian A. Waller, MD, "On Smoking and Drinking and Crashing," 86 N Y St J of Med (Issue # 9), September 1986.

    Smoker Shannon Marie Bugge was killed by a train when "she decided to run across the tracks and buy cigarettes [and] was hit after she purchased the cigarettes and was returning," says "Woman killed in Detroit Lakes train accident identified" (7 April 2010).

    Such an adverse impact is a foreseeable "natural and probable consequence" of smoking factors including but not limited to

  • smokers' impaired hearing
  • impaired vision
  • alcoholism and drunk driving
  • drug abuse
  • mental disorders, and
  • brain damage. Symptoms of the latter include but are not limited to difficulty concentrating, acalculia, odd stereotyped gestures, impaired judgment and ethical and impulse controls, impulsiveness, and delusional thinking patterns.

    • Smokers' Higher Sickness Rate
    Such data has long been known, for example, "in 1671 . . . the Italian biologist, Francesco Redi, published an account of the lethal effects."—Susan Wagner, Cigarette Country: Tobacco in American History and Politics (New York: Praeger, 1971), p 64.

    "Wilson found that cigarette smokers reported about 45% more days lost from work per person per year due to illness of all kinds that did persons who had never smoked," pp 443-444. "Schmidt noted that the number of days of illness with restriction to bed was 44% higher for smokers than nonsmokers in the Federal Armed Forces," p 443. "Smith reported that employees who smoked had more workloss days than those who had never smoked. In every age group, as the number of cigarettes smoked per day increased, so also did sickness absence. The rate of absenteeism in those who smoked more than two packs per day was nearly twice that of non-smokers," p 443. —James A. Athanasou, "Sickness Absence and Smoking Behavior and Its Consequences: A Review," 17 Journal of Occupational Medicine (#7) 441-445 (July 1975).

    "In the survey year 1964-1965 there were an estimated 399 million workdays lost in the United states; of these 77 million or 19% were excess workdays lost because of the higher rates which exist among persons who smoke. . . . Cigarette smokers had higher rates of disability than non-smokers whether measured as days lost from work, days spent ill in bed or days of restricted activity," p 443. "Higher rates of overall morbidity have been reported among cigarette smokers than non-smokers. People who smoke tend to have a greater incidence of ischemic heart disease, lung cancer and other brocnhopulmonary diseases, peptic ulcers and an overall larger proportion of chronic diseases." Athanasou, supra, p 441.

    "It is no longer necessary to reaffirm in the industrial setting the association between smoking and serious disease . . . reported . . . and repeated time and again." Athanasou, supra, p 444.

    And at premature careeer-end, note the need to account "for transfer out of, premature retirement from and death in service . . . as a result of emphysema, lung cancer, coronary heart disease and other smoking-related disease." Athanasou, supra, p 444.

    Additionally, "Study: Obesity Increases Driver’s Risk Of Being In Car Accident" (7 August 2012), "morbidly obese drivers may be at increased risk of a crash due to weight-related health complications. Additionally, car designs that are less than sympathetic to larger frames could leave obese drivers in more critical condition following an accident."

    In law, in fact, it is unlawful to even hire in the first place, persons posing a foreseeable danger. A nonsmoker can easily verify whether the employer's personnel office is negligent in this way. If a lawsuit becomes necessary, the injunction should order the employer to cease and desist the negligent hiring practices, and to undo the continuing effects of the past negligent hiring.

    NEXT, A MORE SEVERE ANALYSIS
    THAN YOU HAVE LIKELY EVER SEEN
    If you are easily offended, stop here.

    TTS is "ultrahazardous." By 1836, it was already well-established "that thousands and tens of thousands die of diseases of the lungs generally brought on by tobacco smoking. . . . How is it possible to be otherwise? Tobacco is a poison. A man will die of an infusion of tobacco as of a shot through the head." —Samuel Green, New England Almanack and Farmer's Friend (1836).

    Almost three decades ago, the Royal College of Physicians, Smoking and Health Now (London: Pitman Medical and Scientific Publishing Co, Ltd, 1971), p 9, called the cigarette death rate a "holocaust" due to the then "annual death toll of some 27,500." This high a death toll is not "accidental" but "premeditated." "Premeditation" means "thought of beforehand for any length of time, however short." See Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed (1990), p 1180.

    Cigarettes' toxic emissions far above the "threshold limit vlaues" (TLV's) cause 37,000,000 U.S. deaths, according to the government's own data, in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) book entitled, Research on Smoking Behavior, Research Monograph 17, DHEW Pub No. ADM 78-581, Foreword, p v (Dec 1978).

    Your reaction is, those "threshold limit values" which cigarette emissions so outrageously and egregiously exceed . . . they protect us! Safety inspectors are our friend. They are from the government, and they are here to help!

    Yeah, right! Here is the rest of the story. The "threshold limit values" are never enforced, NEVER, against cigarette emissions despite their being law. When 42,000 ppm of carbon monoxide are being emitted, a "safety inspector" can record a "4.2" So you die!! Hah, hah, hah, hah!!, he laughs!

    As Carrie Nation said in the alcoholism context a century ago, prosecutors do take bribes to not enforce some laws. As a cover-up measure, records falsification does occur, e.g., to under-report hazardous quantities, e.g., recording "42,000" as "4.2"

    This author has seen it done!--ultra falsifying, record 42,000 as 4! In the cigarette emissions context, "threshold limit values" (TLV's) setting supposed maximum levels of exposure to toxic chemicals, are a mail-fraud scam to deceive workers into thinking they have protection. Falsifying the numbers to under-report exposure is easy. I've seen it done, to cover-up for an employer, the government inspector did the falsifying!

    "If you poison your boss a little bit each day it's called murder; if your boss [or smoker coworker] poisons you a little each day it's called a Threshold Limit Value. —James P. Keogh, M.D." cited by Prof. Robert N. Proctor, Cancer Wars: How Politics Shapes What We Know and Don't Know About Cancer (New York: Basic Books, 1995), p 153. Hah, hah!!

    Pursuant to standard lawbook definitions, nonsmokers' involuntary foreseeable deaths constitute murder. The high, continuing number of deaths is indeed a "holocaust" according to the Royal Society of Physicians' 1971 criteria, and is part of the total genocide problem. Remember, it is "premeditated," known in advance. (No other product has 37 million "accidents"!)

    About "fifty-three per cent. of . . . abortions . . . are due to tobacco. . . . inhalation of tobacco smoke by pregnant mothers when sitting among smokers is sufficient to cause fatal poisoning of the fśtus."—Herbert H. Tidswell, M.D., The Tobacco Habit: Its History and Pathology (London: J. & A. Churchill, 1912), p 238. You are not only protecting yourself. You are protecting others, including the unborn, from "universal malice" deaths, as "pregnant women, and those who are suckling their children, should not be exposed to tobacco smoke."—Tidswell, supra, p 183.

    Don't be bluffed by management promises to post "no-smoking" signs. They will likely not be enforced. Management policy and signs without enforcement are not upheld in court when harm results, see for example, the case of Allen v Posternock, 107 Pa Super 332; 163 A 336 (16 Dec 1932) (the smoker injured someone, by smoking violating a ban on smoking, but the ban was unenforced, so the company was found negligent anyway).

    So now do you see how bosses get away with allowing smoking on the job? If you don't, let me say it direct: Via the total non-enforcement of the pertinent laws and regulations! See also our bribery website. Murder by toxic chemicals (especially hydrogen cyanide and carbon monoxide) exceeding the TLV's was illegal in Nazi Germany, but it was done all the time!! The fact that there is a law means nothing, when it is never enforced by the civil servants/judges whose job it is to do the enforcement!

    But don't give up just yet. There is a way out, though one rarely attempted, and even more rarely, successfully. (This site is on successes, not the bribery-driven failures such as firings of nonsmokers for vainly reporting the violations, and then finding themselves retaliated against).

    A nonsmoker employee who does not wish to be murdered (TLV'd to death) by cigarette emissions can successfully sue employers to obtain smoke-free conduct, examples at Leonard Perkins v Ford Motor Co, et al, Case No. 86-633018 CZ (Wayne County Cir Ct. Mich, 1986); Shimp v New Jersey Bell Telephone Co, 145 NJ Super 516; 368 A2d 408 (1976); and Smith v Western Electric Co, 643 SW2d 10 (Mo App, 1982). Here is the text of the injunction in the Shimp case. See also the Hall v Veterans Administration, Case No. 054-086-X0097 (EEOC, Detroit, Mich, 1986) bench order.

    And see the case of Faragher v City of Boca Raton, 524 US 775; 118 S Ct 2275; 141 L Ed 2d 662 (CA 11, Fla, 26 June 1998), in which the Supreme Court had an on-job sexual harassment case, and deemed the employer vicariously liable, using the example concept of comparability to smoking-on-job as courts develop more understanding.

    A mid-1999 case, Aviation West Corporation v Washington State Dep't of Labor and Industries, 138 Wash 2d 413; 980 P2d 701 (8 July 1999), involved the state government adopting a non-smoking rule akin to the ancient pure air precedents on the job. That also follows the ancient precedents, when the government itself did the suing to force offenders to stop violating the right to pure air.

    As the legal right to "fresh and pure air" exists everywhere, do not deem a partial smoking ban as adequate. Why? Well, ask Dr. Kevorkian! He has learned that it is not legal to kill a person, even a consenting adult, ANYWHERE. The laws against killing people apply everywhere! There is no place, no "free-fire zone," as in combat, where it is ok to spray toxic chemicals and kill people! Wherefore partial bans are unconstitutional. See our website elaborating on the unconstitutionality of partial bans.

    This does not mean to REFUSE any offer. You can "accept" anything, then appeal it. Jews "accepted" being killed at Auschwitz. But The Nurnberg Trial, 6 FRD 69 (1946), disregarded such "acceptances." Nobody's "consent" to less than full compliance with the law has any legal standing whatsoever! (See our website on legal definitions, including so-called "consent.")

    So "accept" all offers, then appeal, citing the offer of less than full compliance with the duty of "fresh and pure air" as showing bad faith on the perpetrator's part. The making of an offer shows that they recognize the hazard, and proves malice, specific intent to harm, by their refusal to eliminate the hazard.

    If you "refuse" an offer, some corrupt officials may hold that against you. Remember, there is corruption and bribery among officials, lawmakers, judges. So they may retaliate. Be careful to couch your words in words unlikely to trigger their retaliation. (Get a lawyer if need be.)

    Think like a police officer. If you are being shot at, and the shooter offers to reduce the rate of fire against you, "accept." But keep on shooting back, keep on prosecuting!

    One Error To Avoid

    You may have heard of the so-called nonsmokers' rights movement. Nonsmokers seek smoke-free conduct, the right to "fresh and pure air," on the job, due to the hazard to themselves. Sometimes they seek to use the Anti-Discrimination Act. Nonsmokers doing that is in a sense misdirected on this issue, although accurate, albeit by indirection. What does this convoluted material mean?

    Being a nonsmoker is NORMAL. The right to "fresh and pure air" has existed for centuries. Smoke-free job sites were the norm for thousands of years! Moreover, it is not necessary to reach the issue of the hazard to nonsmokers. Reason: the employer's duty to prevent and suppress hazardous conduct arises when smokers endanger themselves (of course, activity caused by tobacco pushers), a point in time long before additional personnel (such as nonsmokers) are also endangered. So-called nonsmokers' rights cases such as the above-cited Shimp v N J Bell Tele Co, 145 N J Super 516; 368 A2d 408 (1976), and Smith v Western Elec Co, 643 SW2d 10 (Mo App 1982), were improperly pleaded. They addressed matters other than the hazard to smokers themselves, although the cases arrived at the right result—elimination of the cigarette hazard.

    Some of you may have heard the claim that when a nonsmoker wants the safety and hiring laws enforced, wants the ancient right to "fresh and pure air" (a concept subsumed within standard nuisance law), what the nonsmoker is really asking for is the modern concept called "accommodation." Not so.

    That 1973 "accommodation" concept did not even exist when the 1306 - 1757 "right to fresh and pure air" was being established!! A nonsmoker is not saying, "I'm a nonsmoker, I'm abnormal, or even subnormal, please, I'm begging, ‘accommodate abnormal little me.'" Absolutely not.

    Nonsmoking is not a handicap. Nonsmokers are not abnormal. Smokers are abnormal, indeed, suffer from a severe mental disorder as officially recognized medically, for centuries, addiction. Smoking is the No. 1 cause of diseases and handicaps. The handicapper law is a smokers' rights law, to stop discrimination against smokers on the sole basis of their tobacco-caused health conditions. (Smokers far more urgently need the right to a safe product, as Michigan has provided, to stop tobacco company discrimination against them.)

    The "right to fresh and pure air" is an absolute right. Accommodation is a far lesser right, only applicable when the action you are seeking is deemed "reasonable." Typically that decision is made by smokers! And naturally they deem that TTS-control is "unreasonable!" Why surrender your absolute common law right, in favor of a far lesser one! Urging you to do that must be deemed a tobacco lobby scam to cheat you out of your Constitutional right (Ninth Amendment) to "fresh and pure air," to cheat you out of a fundamental common law right to protection from nuisances (listed in Tull v United States, 481 US 412 (CA 4, 28 April 1987), at footnote 5).

    Wherefore the legal "accommodation" that tobacco lobbyists want to saddle nonsmokers with, is inapplicable. "Accommodation" is for something in "employment," another legal term. Smoker conduct is not in "employment," making it an "accommodation" issue. Instead, it is a deviation, with the employer responsible to control the deviation. Here is some case law: Smoking "is not in the course of the employment," George v Bekins Van & Storage Co, 33 Cal 2d 834; 205 P2d 1037, 1042 (1949). "Workmen are not employed to smoke," MTM Co v MCP Corp, 49 F2d 146, 150 (CA 10, 1931). Smoking is never found to be "in employment," examples at

    ANOTHER ERROR TO AVOID

    Sometimes employers, to evade doing their duty to "eliminate" and "suppress" the hazard, will claim, 'we'll monitor the situation.' Yeah, 'monitor' and 'monitor,' until the hazard renders you sick or dead, then we'll deny any resultant claims!

    Legally speaking, 'monitoring,' whether called 'biological' or by another term, is not 'preventing' and 'suppressing' the hazard, but rather merely observing it continue! "Biological monitoring" is inadequate when it does "not eliminate or even reduce the hazard," but merely reveals it, says American Smelting & R. Co v Occ. Safety & Health Rev Commission, 501 F2d 504, 515 (1974).

    The duty to eliminate hazards (behaviors or substances to which regular exposure foreseeably leads to "material impairment of [employee] health," of which tobacco smoke is the most notorious example) is "unqualified and absolute," says National Rlty. & C. Co, Inc v Occ. Safety & Health Rev Commission, 160 US App DC 133, 141; 489 F2d 1257, 1265 (1973).

    P 1267 says, "To establish a violation of the general duty clause, hazardous conduct need not actually have occurred, for a safety program's feasibly curable inadequacies may sometimes be demonstrated before employees have acted dangerously."

    P 1268 says, "Because employers have a general duty to do virtually everything possible to prevent and repress hazardous conduct by employees, violations exist almost everywhere."

    P 1264, n 27, says "permission often means only a failure to prevent . . . ." And: "An employer, of course, enjoys vast physical authority over his employees and their workplace, a fact which Congress stressed in drafting the general duty clause. See, e.g., S.Rep.No.91-1282, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., 9 (Oct. 6, 1970), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1970, p. 5177, and H.R.Rep.No.91-1291 . . . ."

    Pp 1266-7, n 37, say, "we emphasize that an instance of hazardous employee conduct may be considered preventable even if no employer could have detected the conduct, or its hazardous character, at the moment of its occurrence. Conceivably, such conduct might have been precluded through feasible precautions concerning the hiring, training, and sanctioning [disciplining] of employees."

    OTHER EXAMPLES OF
    WORKPLACE SMOKING CASES

  • Bluestein v Scoparino, 277 App Div 534; 100 NYS 2d 577 (21 Nov 1950) (issue of smoker setting fire to factory, though forbidden to smoke on the job)

  • Alexander v California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Bd, 104 Cal App 3d 97; 163 Cal Rptr 411 (1 April 1980) (Details at ASH)

  • Alford v City of Newport News, 220 Va 584; 260 SE2d 241 (21 Nov 1979) (restaurant case)

  • Anderson v Anoka County Welfare Bd, CA No. 4-79 Civ 269 (D Minn, 24-26 March 1981)

  • Anderson v State Acc Ins Fund, 57 Oregon App 770; 646 P2d 1352 (16 June 1982)

  • Appell v Moorestown Bd of Educ, Unemployment Comp Claim No AT C81-3036 (NJ Dept of Labor and Industry, 25 June 1981)

  • ATE Fixture Fab v Wagner, 559 So 2d 635 (Fla App, 25 Jan 1990) (Details at ASH)

  • Bell v Elmhurst Chicago Stone Co, 919 F Supp 308 (ND Ill, 13 March 1996) (Details at ASH)

  • Bernard v Cameron & Colby Co, Inc, 397 Mass 320; 491 NE2d 604; 63 ALR 4th 1015; 2 IER Cas (BNA) 678; 104 Lab Cas (CCH) § P55,584 (13 April 1986) (Details at ASH)

  • Billman v Sumrall, 464 So 2d 382 (La App, 26 Feb 1985) (Details at ASH)

  • Bompane v Enzolabs, Inc, 160 Misc 2d 315; 608 NYS2d 989 (2 Feb 1994) (Details at ASH)

  • Broin v Philip Morris Cos, Inc, 19 Fla L Weekly D588; 641 So 2d 888 (15 March 1994) (second-hand smoke injury case; aka the flight attendants' class action case re TTS injury to traveling workers (stewardesses) due to others' ultrahazardous activity of smoking on the job violating the right to "fresh and pure air") (Amicus Curiae Brief by ASH)

  • Caron v Silvia, 32 Mass App Ct 271; 588 NE2d 711 (23 March 1992) (Details at ASH)

  • Carroll v Tennessee Valley Authority, 697 F Supp 508; 3 IER 149 (D DC, 3 March 1988) (Tennessee's 1897 law) (Details at ASH)

  • Commonwealth v Hughes, 468 Pa 502; 364 A2d 306 (8 Oct 1976) (a fire case in Pennsylvania)

  • Cooper v Chrysler Corp, 125 Mich App 811; 336 NW2d 877 (18 May 1983)

  • Dept of Health and Human Services v Fed. Labor Relations Authority, 280 US App DC 289; 885 F2d 911 (15 Sep 1989) (Details at ASH)

  • Dept of Health and Human Services Family Support Admin v Fed. Labor Relations Authority, 287 US App DC 114; 920 F2d 45 (30 Nov 1990) (Details at ASH)

  • Dickerson v Reeves, 588 SW2d 854 (Tex Civ App, 11 Oct 1979)

  • Eastern Airlines, Inc and GAB v Crittenden and Travelers Ins Co, 596 So 2d 112; 17 Fla W D 724 (11 March 1992) (Details at ASH)

  • Emery et al v Dream Spirits, Inc, 879 F Supp 640 (D ND Tex, 1 Feb 1995) (Details at ASH)

  • Eskenazi v Merit Systems, Inc, No 87-338255 CK (MI, Oakland Cty Circ Ct, 18 May 1989)

  • FENSR v United States, 446 F Supp 181 (D DC, 1 March 1978) aff'd 194 US App DC 391; 598 F2d 310 (2 May 1979) cert den 444 US 926; 100 S Ct 265; 62 L Ed 2d 182 (29 Oct 1979) (Details at ASH)

  • Fuller v Allison Gas Turbine Division, GM Corp, 670 NE2d 64 (Ind App, 26 Aug 1996) (Details at ASH)

  • Gardner v Hercules, Inc and Standard Industrial Maintenance, Inc, 1996 Va App LEXIS 22 (16 Jan 1996) (Details at ASH)

  • GASP v Mecklenburg County, 42 NC App 225; 256 SE2d 477 (3 July 1979) (Details at ASH)

  • Gasper, et al, v Louisiana Stadium and Exposition District, et al, 577 F2d 897; 8 ELR ¶ 20,612 (CA 5, La, 1 Aug 1978) (Details at ASH)

  • Gladieux Food Services Inc v Int'l Assn of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 70 LA (BNA) 544 (Pa, 1 March 1978) (smoker discharge case in Pennsylvania, smoker endangering coworkers and travelers)

  • Golden v Communication Technology Corp, 36 EPD (CCH) ¶ 35,095 (D ND Ga, 30 Jan 1985) (smoker discharge case)

  • Goodrum, et al v Greater Cleveland RTA, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 3322 (8 Aug 1996) (Details at ASH)

  • Gordon v Raven Systems & Research, Inc, 462 A2d 10 (DC App, 5 May 1983) (Details at ASH)

  • Grusendorf v City of Oklahoma City, 816 F2d 539 (CA 10, Okl, 17 April 1987) (smoker discharge case citing the 15 USC § 1333 Surgeon General warning label)

  • Gupton v Commonwealth of Virginia et al., 63 EPD (CCH) ¶ 42,768; 14 F3d 203 (CA 4, Va, 13 Jan 1994) cert den 513 US 810; 115 S Ct 59; 130 L Ed 2d 17 (3 Oct 1994) (Details at ASH)

  • Hall v Sisters of Mercy Health Corp, No 80-031-746 (Mi Wayne Cty Circ Ct, 26 Oct 1983)

  • Hall v Veterans Admin, EEOC No 054-086-X0097 (Detroit, Michigan, 5 Sep 1986)

  • Harmer v Virginia Electric & Power Co, 63 EPD (CCH) ¶ 42,653; 831 F Supp 1300 (D ED Va, 20 Sep 1995) (Details at ASH)

  • Hentzel v Singer Co et al, 138 Cal App 3d 290; 188 Cal Rptr 159 (20 Dec 1982) (Details at ASH)

  • Hinman v Yakima School District No. 7, 3 AD 1465; 69 Wash App 445; 850 P2d 536 (20 April 1993) cert den (Details at ASH)

  • Homeyer v Stanley Tulchin Associates, Inc et al., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17114 (D ND Ill, ED, 17 Nov 1995) (Details at ASH)

  • Iacovelli v New York Times Co, 124 AD2d 324; 507 NYS 2d 922 (16 Oct 1986) (Details at ASH)

  • Iandorio v Kriss & Senko Enterprises, Inc, 512 Pa 392; 517 A2d 530 (17 Nov 1986) (Details at ASH)

  • Matter of Johannesen v Dept of Housing Preservation and Development, 154 AD2d 753; 546 NYS2d 40 (12 Oct 1989) (Details at ASH)

  • Johns-Manville Sales Corp v Int'l Ass' of Machinists, Local Lodge 1609, 621 F2d 756; 104 LRRM 2985; 89 Lab Cas (CCH) ¶ 12,156 (CA 5, Tx, 16 July 1980) (Details at ASH)

  • Kamen v AT&T, McDonald and Buckham, 791 F2d 1006; 40 EPD ¶ 36,163; 4 Fed P Serv 3d (Callaghan) 979 (CA 2, NY, 23 May 1986) (Details at ASH)

  • Kellogg v Mayfield, 72 Ohio App 3d 490; 595 NE2d 465 (11 Feb 1991) cert den 61 Ohio St 3d 1421; 574 NE2d 1092 (1991) (Details at ASH)

  • Kensell v State of Oklahoma, 716 F2d 1350 (CA 10, Okl, 13 Sep 1983) (Details at ASH)

  • King v Bangor Federal Credit Union, 53 EPD (CCH) ¶ 39,813; 57 FEP (BNA) 1618; 568 A2d 507 (29 Dec 1989) (Details at ASH)

  • Lapham v Commonwealth Unemployment Comp Bd of Review, 103 Pa Cmnwlth 144; 519 A2d 1101 (13 Jan 1987) (Details at ASH)

  • Matter of Compensation of Downey, 37 Van Natta 455 (23 April 1985)

  • Matter of Mack v County of Rockland, 71 NY2d 1008; 530 NYS2d 98; 525 NE2d 744 (22 April 1988). SCB: 128 AD2d 922 (Details at ASH)

  • McCarthy v State of Washington Dept of Social and Health Services, 1988 OSH (CCH) ¶ 28,254; 3 IER Cas (BNA) 710; 13 OSHC (BNA) 1811; 110 Wash 2d 812; 759 P2d 351 (30 June 1988). SCB: 46 Wn App 125 (Details at ASH)

  • McCracken v Sloan, 40 NC App 214; 252 SE2d 250 (6 March 1979) (Details at ASH)

  • McCrocklin v Calif Dept of Employment, et al., 156 Cal App 3d 1067; 205 Cal Rptr 156 (7 June 1984) (Details at ASH)

  • Moore v Inmont Corporation, 608 F Supp 919 (D WD NC, 4 April 1985) (smoker discharge case) (Details at ASH)

  • Muller v Costello, et al., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5239 (D ND NY, 16 April 1996) (Details at ASH)

  • Palmer v Del Webb's High Sierra, 108 Nev 673; 838 P2d 435 (1 Sep 1992) (second-hand Toxic Tobacco Smoke worker compensation case) (Details at ASH)

  • Parodi v Merit Systems Protection Board, 690 F2d 731 (CA 10, Cal, 26 Nov 1982) (Details at ASH)

  • Peck v Dept of Human Rights, et al., 234 Ill App 3d 334; 175 Ill Dec 456; 600 NE2d 79 (10 Sep 1992) (Details at ASH)

  • Perkins v Ford Motor Co, et al., Civ No. 86-633018-CZ (Wayne Cty Cir Ct, Mich, 25 Nov 1986) (injunction for smoke-free workplace)

  • Pullman Kellogg v Workmens' Comp Appeals Bd, 26 Cal 3d 450; 161 Cal Rptr 783; 605 P2d 422 (4 Feb 1990)

  • Quinn, Gent, Buseck & Leemhuis, Inc v Unemployment Comp Bd of Review, 147 Pa Cmnwlth 141; 606 A2d 1300 (8 April 1992) (Details at ASH)

  • Rhoads v Federal Deposit Insurance, Corp et al., 3 Wage & Hour Cas 2d (BNA) 1381; 956 F Supp 1239 (D MD, 22 Feb 1997) (Details at ASH and at Rhoads' website)

  • Roos v Ally and Gargano, Inc., 1993 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2142) (Stamford Super Ct, 19 Aug 1993) (Details at ASH)

  • Rossie v State of Wisconsin Department of Revenue, 65 ALR 4th 1191; 1 IER Cas (BNA) 1048; 105 Lab Cas (CCH) ¶ 55,658; 133 Wisc 2d 341; 395 NW 2d 801 (1986) (Details at ASH)

  • Rotenberg v Industrial Commission, 42 Colo App 161; 590 P2d 521 (1 Feb 1979) (Details at ASH) (issue of TTS posing workplace hazard, court incompetently said the employee should present evidence of the TTS hazard, i.e., failed to follow the Austin precedent on taking judicial notice of the TTS hazard, as a judicial finding of fact!!)

  • Ruckstiehl v Commonwealth Unemployment Comp Bd of Review, 57 Pa Cmnwlth 302; 426 A2d 719 (4 March 1981) (Details at ASH)

  • Schober v Mountain Bell Telephone, 93 NM 337; 600 P2d 283 (31 Oct 1978)

  • Schober v Mountain Bell Telephone, 92 NM 621; 593 P2d 62 (15 March 1979)

  • Schober v Mountain Bell Telephone, 96 NM 376; 630 P2d 1231 (7 Aug 1980) (Details at ASH)

  • Shimp v New Jersey Bell Telephone Co, 145 NJ Super 516; 368 A2d 408 (20 Dec 1976) (Details at ASH; Context at TCPG)

  • Shipley v City of Johnson City, 620 SW2d 500 (Tenn App, 24 April 1981)

  • Smith v Western Electric Co, 643 SW2d 10 (Mo App, 14 Sep 1982) (Details at ASH)

  • Smith v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of New Jersey, No. C-3617-81E (N J Super Ct Ch Div, 18 Aug 1983)

  • Social Security Admin v Am Fed of Govt Employees, 82-1 ARB ¶ 8206 (Cal 22 Jan 1982)

  • Vickers v Veterans Admin, et al., 549 F Supp 85; 29 FEP Cases 1197; 30 EPD (CCH) ¶ 27,532 (D WD Wash, 31 Aug 1982) (Details at ASH)

  • W-I Forest Products Co, 138 LRRM 1089; 199 NLRB Dec (CCH) ¶ 16,869; 304 NLRB 957 (30 Aug 1991) (Details at ASH)

  • YHA, Inc v NLRB, 2 F3d 168; 143 LRRM 3057; 125 Lab Cas (CCH) ¶ 10,802 (11 Aug 1993) (Details at ASH)

  • Duncan v Northwest Airlines, Case No. 98-35617 (CA 9, Wash, 6 April 2000) (flight attendant second-hand smoke pulmonary injury case) cert den US S Ct, L Ed 2d, Case No. 00-404 (10 Dec 2000)

    • C O N C L U S I O N

    The bottom line is that smokers are not hired to spew toxic chemicals nor to set fires!! So their doing so, is not a job ("employment") function. Smoking was controlled by employers long before any modern "accommodation" law. Smokers are not even to be hired in the first place.

    Do not be conned or scammed into saying that you, nonsmoker, are abnormal, subnormal, etc., begging on your knees for "accommodation" or for reimbursement of your medical expenses. No, demand that the safety and hiring laws be enforced! Others get laws enforced.

    Refusing you law enforcement is disparate treatment (employers enforce other laws! just not this one, the safety law!), a different form of discrimination than the "accommodation" issue. See the Hall v Veterans Administration, EEOC No. 054-086-X0097 (Detroit MI, 1986) case. And read the above linked websites if you have not already done so, especially the one on murder.

    FOR FURTHER READING

    Daum, Susan M. Daum and Jeanne Mager Stellman,
    Work is Dangerous to Your Health:
    A Handbook of Health Hazards in the Workplace
    and What You Can Do About Them
    (New York, Vintage Books, 1973)

    Daniel Berman, PhD, Death on the Job: The
    Politics of Occupational Health in the United States
    (San Francisco: Medical Committee for Human Rights, 1974)

    "Smoking as hazardous conduct,"
    86 N Y St J Med 493 (September 1986)

    Discusses workplace smoking as already illegal pursuant to OSHA's 29 CFR § 1910.1000 emissions limits, which cigarettes regularly exceed

    Jeanne M. Stellman and Mary Sue Henifin,
    Office Work Can Be Dangerous to Your Health:
    A Handbook of Office Health and Safety Hazards
    and What You Can Do About Them    ,
    Rev. and updated
    (New York: Fawcett Crest, 1989)

    "[Indoor Air Quality] IAQ Already Regulated,"
    3 Indoor Air Rev 3 (April 1993)

    Discusses workplace smoking as already illegal pursuant to OSHA's 29 CFR § 1910.1000 emissions limits, which cigarettes regularly exceed

    "Alternative Models for Controlling
    Smoking Among Adolescents    ,"
    87 Am J Pub Health 869-870 (May 1997)

    Elizabeth Heitzman, "Hospitals ban all smoking on premises,"
    Columbia (Missouri) Tribune (29 April 2006)

    Discusses preventing smoking among children
    by doing for them as for all other people:
    a law providing that only safe products
    be manufactured, given away, and sold

    Text of A Letter By This Author to The Secretary of Labor Asking Her To Have The Federal Job Safety Agency (OSHA) Enforce 29 CFR § 1910.1000 As Part of the "War on Drugs" Inasmuch As It Does No Enforcement Of The Rule In Its Own Right

    Data on smoking as addictive means that smoking is not voluntary, not consented to, pursuant to standard accepted legal terms and definitions.

    In any discussion that can become formal, it is wise to use legal terms and definitions with which employer and employee representatives, often lawyers, are familiar.  This will help develop recognition of the fact that smokers' involuntary deaths (not to mention nonsmokers') meet criteria established in case law on poisoning and murder.

             Case law shows that those in the media who provide disinformation leading to deaths can be held legally liable, details at the personal responsibility for words site.  Disinformation by employers in support of smoking can also result in liability.

    Medical recognition that cigarette-caused deaths were already at the "holocaust" level occurred in 1971. Case law provides for prosecution.

    The fact that smokers' conduct is hazardous to themselves, others, and property, can easily be established, via medical journal data covering a wide range of smoking-caused harms and behaviors:

    ABORTION ADDICTION AIDS ALCOHOLISM
    ALZHEIMER'S BIRTH DEFECTS Brain Damage BREAST CANCER
    CRIME  DIVORCE DRUGS FIRES
    Hearing Loss HEART DISEASE LUNG CANCER Macular Degeneration
    Mental Disorder Seat Belt Disuse SIDS SUICIDE

    Examples of websites of other groups with a pertinent message include but are not limited to the following:

    Action on Smoking and Health Am Council on Science and Health
    Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights Jack Cannon's Website
    Mid-Coast Maine Clean Indoor Air People Against Smoking
    Secret Tobacco Company Documents Smokescreen Action Network
    State Tobacco Information Center Tobacco Industry Information

    Issues (Counts) For Your Lawsuit
    Count 1: Violation of the Common Law "Right to Fresh and Pure Air"
    2: Violation of Your Constitutional Right (Ninth Amendment) To Same
    3: Violation of the Federal Safety Law 29 USC § 651 et seq
    4: Violation of the State Safety Law
    5: Violation of Your Federal Freedom of Speech to Raise The Issue
    6: Violation of Your State Freedom of Speech to Raise The Issue
    7: Violation of State Whistleblower Protection Law If You Are Punished For Raising Issues of Unlawfulness
    8: Negligent Hiring of Smokers By Employer
    9: Aiding-Abetting Violations of State Cigarette Law (Example)
    10: Violation of the ADA - Granting Smokers Accommodation Without Their Asking or Qualifying
    11: Pattern of Violations - Linking to The Overall Pattern of Misconduct and Racketeering As Cited in the 1990's Attorney General and Department of Justice Litigation

    Four Examples of Such Cases
    Donna Shimp v N J Bell Tele Co,
    145 N J Super 516; 368 A2d 408 (1976)
    Paul Smith v Western Elect Co,
    643 SW2d 10 (Mo App, 1982)
    Lauren Hall v Veterans Admin,
    EEOC Case 054-086-X0097 (Detroit, 5 Sep 1986)
    Leonard Perkins v Ford Motor Co,
    Case 86-633018-CZ (Wayne Cnty Circ Ct, Mich, 25 Nov 1986)

    The Parallel DOJ Racketeering
    Case Against Tobacco Companies
    Prior Advice to DOJ
    DoJ Lawsuit
    DoJ Appendix
    DoJ Press Release
    Law Writer Analysis
    Health Group Analysis

    A Public Interest Group
    Petition To Aid Private Litigants
    Overview Material
    Court Decisions
    State-By-State Status
    List of AG Websites
    List of Anti-Trust / Fraud Cases
    List of Fire Cases
    Tobacco Hazards Cases
    Condominium/Apartments Cases
    The 4 May 1886
    Haymarket Incident

    Federal Government
    Legal Reources Overview

    "The proof of the pattern or practice [of willingness to commit racketeering acts, hire dangerous people, allow hazardous acts, endanger others] supports an inference that any particular decision, during the period in which the policy was in force, was made in pursuit of that policy." Teamsters v U.S., 431 US 324, 362; 97 S Ct 1843, 1868; 52 L Ed 2d 396, 431 (1977).

    Violations of criminal law can indeed result in damage to private citizens. Ware-Kramer Tobacco Co v American Tobacco Co, 180 F 160 (ED NC, 1910).

    Litigants can show as part of the evidence in his/her own case, the guilt of others linked to the current defendant, in showing a pattern. Locker v American Tobacco Co, 194 F 232 (1912).

    Benefit of Citing RICO In Your Case
    RICO is the anti-organized crime law that the 22 September 1999 Department of Justice case cited to recover damages from tobacco companies. RICO covers all defined racketeering acts, generally, extortion, mail fraud, falsification of documents, killings, etc.
    The benefit to the crime victim, the litigant, you, is that RICO provides for TRIPLE damages, pursuant to 18 USC § 1964.(c). In legal terms, this constitutes the value of the underlying claim, Basic Food Industries, Inc v Grant, 107 Mich App 685, 691; 310 NW2d 26, 29 (1981).
    RICO is comparable to, and likely additional to, state law, for example, the Michigan trebling law, MCL § 600.2907, MSA § 27A.2907, as the harm caused is malicious. A pertinent Michigan trebling case is Pauley v Hall, 124 Mich App 255; 335 NW2d 197 (1983). Check your state for your pertinent laws and cases.

    For Further Reading
    E. Richard Larson, Sue Your Boss
    (NY: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1981) (cities the then seven redress laws often overlooked)
    Paul H. Tobias and Susan Sauter, “Was Your Termination Discriminatory?” and Job Rights & Survival Strategies: A Handbook for Terminated Employees (NERI, 1997).
    Prof. David Yamada, “Workplace Bullying and the Law” (12 March 2005).
    Richard Peres, Dealing with Employment Discrimination (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978), "losing one's job is the most adverse thing that can happen to a person in the employment world. A discharge for cause can have damaging and lasting consequences in one's career and life."
    29 USC § 141 and 5 USC § 7117(a)(1), which provide that laws and government-wide regulations are non-negotiable, not subject to repeal by contract. See also West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette, 319 US 624, 638; 63 S Ct 1178; 87 L Ed 1628 (1943) and Romer v Evans, 517 US 620; 116 S Ct 1620; 134 L Ed 2d 855 (1996) (no vote allowed to repeal constitutional rights). Employers are of course not allowed to negotiate mental disorders (smoking is a medically recognized mental disorder).

    The author is available to speak to your group. To send an e-mail request to the author, click here.

    This site is sponsored as a public service by
    The Crime Prevention Group. Please visit our homepage.

    For Email contact: lpletten@tir.com.

    Copyright © 1999 Leroy J. Pletten