News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:U-Haul to Implement Nicotine-Free Hiring Policy by inamberclad on Thursday January 02, 2020 @11:39PM (#21943217)
I doubt this is legal. Can a company refuse to hire people who drink alcohol because they're statistically less healthy than those who never drink? It's already illegal to discriminate on the basis of other factors which influence health, such as age and pregnancy.
Re:U-Haul to Implement Nicotine-Free Hiring Policy by astura on Thursday January 02, 2020 @11:45PM (#21943259)
Smokers and drinkers are (generally) not a protected class in US employment law whereas pregnant people and older people are [1]

Some states may have additional employment laws that protect smokers.

[1] https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/smallbusiness/faq/who_is_prot...

Re:U-Haul to Implement Nicotine-Free Hiring Policy by jnwatson on Thursday January 02, 2020 @11:55PM (#21943316)
It isn’t an EEOC violation, but possibly an ADA one. Discriminating against nicotine addicts might be illegal.
Re:U-Haul to Implement Nicotine-Free Hiring Policy by jakear on Friday January 03, 2020 @11:18AM (#21947215)
> An individual with a disability is defined by the ADA as a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a person who has a history or record of such an impairment, or a person who is perceived by others as having such an impairment.

I’m not sure nicotine addiction fits the bill, what major life activities does it substantially inhibit?

https://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm#anchor62335

Re:U-Haul to Implement Nicotine-Free Hiring Policy by Johnny555 on Friday January 03, 2020 @11:31AM (#21947388)
what major life activities does it substantially inhibit?

Apparently, holding a job.

Re:U-Haul to Implement Nicotine-Free Hiring Policy by usefulcat on Friday January 03, 2020 @11:11AM (#21947128)
Are you saying that nicotine addiction is or might be classified as a disability under the ADA?
Re:U-Haul to Implement Nicotine-Free Hiring Policy by JackRabbitSlim on Friday January 03, 2020 @01:26PM (#21948771)
He's saying its one Schizo lawsuit away from being a proxy for discrimination.

"We can't not hire black people but we forbid coconut oil hair product use among employees" How well do you think that would go over in a court?

Re:U-Haul to Implement Nicotine-Free Hiring Policy by nerdponx on Friday January 03, 2020 @11:46AM (#21947583)
Can you discriminate against heroin addicts in hiring?
Re:U-Haul to Implement Nicotine-Free Hiring Policy by smnrchrds on Friday January 03, 2020 @12:01AM (#21943357)
Drinking can work as a proxy for belonging or not belonging to certain religions. There must be at least enough standing to challenge such a policy in court, if not win the case. Of course the correlation is not r=1, but it is high enough to question whether religion is being targeted by proxy.

Which reminds me that not consuming nicotine and caffeine could be a proxy for being Mormon. So those policies might find their way into courts as well.

Re:U-Haul to Implement Nicotine-Free Hiring Policy by jachee on Friday January 03, 2020 @12:09AM (#21943400)
Not many religions associated with nicotine, though.

Unless one were to count the Juul cult.

Re:U-Haul to Implement Nicotine-Free Hiring Policy by nwmcsween on Friday January 03, 2020 @02:40AM (#21944044)
Native Americans would probably disagree
Re:U-Haul to Implement Nicotine-Free Hiring Policy by dirtyoldmick on Friday January 03, 2020 @12:20AM (#21943448)
Voodoo and Native American religions use tobacco.
Re:U-Haul to Implement Nicotine-Free Hiring Policy by yibg on Friday January 03, 2020 @11:35AM (#21947450)
Not that familiar with the specifics of the law here so many someone more knowledgeable can shed some light. Can employers discriminate against non protected classes that are closely correlated with protected classes? For example hiring only non vegetarians, people that drink alcohol etc that correlates with certain religions.
Re:U-Haul to Implement Nicotine-Free Hiring Policy by throwaway17_17 on Friday January 03, 2020 @01:40PM (#21948906)
Most likely the ‘legitimate non discriminatory reason’ rule would be applied. Meaning the employer or prospective employer needs only provide an ‘honestly held’ reason for the practice. Although, the Federal Circuit courts are split regarding whether such a reason needs to be objectively reasonable. So (and this is not legal advice) if an employer does not want to hire members from outside of a particular group who happen to be non-consumers of alcPhil for religious reasons, they could site health insurance premiums as a reason to bar all candidates who consumed alcohol, thereby having a sort of shadow ban on people not belonging to that particular group. I think (and again, this doesn’t constitute legal advice) that such a reason would hold up under either the honestly held or objectively reasonable standards in the event of a suit.

— Also, the presentation of evidence under the above standard would be done at summary judgement, before the discrimination issue even got near discovery or trial.

Re:U-Haul to Implement Nicotine-Free Hiring Policy by JohnFen on Friday January 03, 2020 @11:21AM (#21947251)
A company can refuse to hire (or even fire) employees for any reason it wishes, as long as the reason isn't one in the short list or protected classes.

What you eat, drink or smoke is not the basis for any protected class unless it's linked to a religious practice.

Re:U-Haul to Implement Nicotine-Free Hiring Policy by netsharc on Friday January 03, 2020 @11:33AM (#21947432)
I suppose someone's going to start the Church of Marlboro soon...
Re:U-Haul to Implement Nicotine-Free Hiring Policy by vertex-four on Thursday January 02, 2020 @11:42PM (#21943237)
Age and pregnancy status are very specifically listed in law as being illegal to discriminate on (in the US). Anything else is fair game. Assuming you enjoy being able to eat, your life belongs to your employer.
Re:U-Haul to Implement Nicotine-Free Hiring Policy by dylz on Thursday January 02, 2020 @11:51PM (#21943295)
Weirdly, age is only discrimination if they're over 40 in the US, while below that you can do as much "illegal discrimination" as you want, which is pretty messed up.
Re:U-Haul to Implement Nicotine-Free Hiring Policy by bananocurrency on Thursday January 02, 2020 @11:56PM (#21943325)
I dont know about you but I really enjoyed this policy as a 22 year old with 10 years experience vs a 30 year old bootcamper. "They have a family they need to support and you're more of a risk" I'm glad we have really innovative policies that allow businesses to grow like this.
Re:U-Haul to Implement Nicotine-Free Hiring Policy by layoutIfNeeded on Friday January 03, 2020 @11:11AM (#21947132)
>22 year old with 10 years experience

Hmmm.

Re:U-Haul to Implement Nicotine-Free Hiring Policy by nicoburns on Friday January 03, 2020 @11:54AM (#21947670)
My early experience (ages 13-19), which consists of a mix of projects in Game Maker, PHP and JavaScript is at least as important as my later professional experience.

It's not equivalent: when I got my first job at 19 I was incredibly naive, I'd barely used source control, and I had a bad case of NIH syndrome. BUT, it's given me a depth of experience that is rarely matched by my people in age group.

Actual professional experience is often quite routine, and time pressured. You don't get the same opportunity to experiment and learn things in depth that one has as a teenager. It might not be the most efficient way to learn, but it's certainly effective.

Do I sometimes feel a bit of a fraud putting "12 years of experience" on my CV? Yes. But I also know I can hold my own in a room of people who have 12 years of "real" professional experience, and that it was this early experience that enables me to do that. So it seems equally disingenuous to not put it on my CV.

Re:U-Haul to Implement Nicotine-Free Hiring Policy by jakear on Friday January 03, 2020 @11:20AM (#21947236)
Do you not believe someone can begin to gain coding experience at age 12?
Re:U-Haul to Implement Nicotine-Free Hiring Policy by layoutIfNeeded on Friday January 03, 2020 @11:22AM (#21947269)
Not in a way that's relevant for your employer 10 years later. It can be a nice anecdote to mention, but don't put it on your CV.

By the way, I started coding at the age of 13.

Re:U-Haul to Implement Nicotine-Free Hiring Policy by nationsobviou on Friday January 03, 2020 @11:49AM (#21947604)
Maybe you're just not as good as OP. I started writing code at 10 and being properly employed (contract, office hours every day, etc etc) at 14. I'm 28.

The extra years of experience in Delphi, C#, JavaScript, HTML, CSS, PHP, Python, Ruby (before Rails even :-) that I had before the age of 18 are certainly a significant part of why I'm ahead both in seniority and pay of many people who work side-by-side to me, or for me.

Re:U-Haul to Implement Nicotine-Free Hiring Policy by shantly on Friday January 03, 2020 @12:14PM (#21947917)
The unpaid screwing-around-with-computers I did from ~13 through college is very relevant for my employers. I'd be a way shittier developer if you took out especially the Linux admin and networking stuff I picked up then, most of which I would not have picked up at any of my employers since, nor in college—I'd have just been among the other developers without a clue why X is happening or Y is broken—though it's consistently been extremely useful.

For the record, I did paid screwing-around-with-computers from 15 on, but the unpaid stuff added at least as much value to me as an employee.

Ditto my abandoned humanities degree, which I also don't put on my résumé. More valuable to my work as a software developer than the CS degree I eventually got. I wouldn't present it that way for obvious reasons, but that doesn't change the reality of it.

Re:U-Haul to Implement Nicotine-Free Hiring Policy by sk5t on Thursday January 02, 2020 @11:59PM (#21943341)
Prohibiting employers from discriminating against workers under 40 would be not unlike prohibiting the NFL from refusing to employ fast 40-yard runners, or disallowing Hooters from refusing to hire buxom servers. If you'll please forgive the swell of double/triple negatives.
Re:U-Haul to Implement Nicotine-Free Hiring Policy by pacaro on Friday January 03, 2020 @12:27AM (#21943484)
IANAL You find yourself in BFOQ (bona fide occupational qualification) territory here — sometimes stated as "blind people can't be bus drivers".

For an NFL player, running speed is clearly a BFOQ. For Hooters the case is more complicated (IIRC there is case law)

Re:U-Haul to Implement Nicotine-Free Hiring Policy by sk5t on Friday January 03, 2020 @12:46AM (#21943600)
Yes, but--the gist of my post was that there is no utility (and maybe some negative utility) in trying to pass laws to prevent the NFL, or Hooters, or whoever, from hiring the people they really, really do prefer to hire, all other things equal.
Re:U-Haul to Implement Nicotine-Free Hiring Policy by ChrisMarshallNY on Friday January 03, 2020 @11:49AM (#21947607)
As a tecchie over forty, I can report that age discrimination in the tech industry is hearty and robust.

No one gives a damn about the law. Many companies have job ads that barely conceal their bias. As long as the money keeps pouring in, no one will cook the goose that lays the golden eggs. This has been the case for the finance industry for decades.

It's a shame, but I am fortunate, in not needing to work again. Many of my peers are not so fortunate. Some of the younger folk are in for a nasty shock, when their hair starts to turn gray. I hope they are keeping their 401Ks maxed each year. They'll need them.

Re:U-Haul to Implement Nicotine-Free Hiring Policy by _0ffh on Friday January 03, 2020 @12:18PM (#21947966)
>because they're statistically less healthy than those who never drink

Um, that claim is not even supported by the evidence. Several studies have found health benefits of moderate alcohol use over teetotalling. Heavy drinkers OTOH definitely fare worse than even the teetotallers.

Re:U-Haul to Implement Nicotine-Free Hiring Policy by MisterBastahrd on Friday January 03, 2020 @11:55AM (#21947679)
My employer has a $100 per month surcharge if you fail to pass a physical and another $75 per month surcharge if you fail to pass a nicotine screening. Their justification is that they self-fund insurance and they're trying to keep rates down.
Re:U-Haul to Implement Nicotine-Free Hiring Policy by butterisgood on Thursday January 02, 2020 @11:51PM (#21943291)
It’s legal in almost half the United States.