Smoker Hiring Bans

Late last year, two hospitals in Pennsylvania announced they would no longer hire employees who used tobacco. The move was seen as a way to promote healthier lifestyles, reduce sick days, and lower health insurance costs.

Refusing to hire smokers is perfectly legal in the Keystone State, as Pennsylvania doesn’t consider smokers to be a protected class when it comes to hiring practices.

The landscape is different in New Hampshire, where a 1992 law forbids any employer from making not smoking a condition of getting or keeping a job.

However, smoking within the workplace is only allowed in New Hampshire in designated smoking areas.

Supporters of laws allowing employers to reject smokers argue that smoking is a choice, so smokers do not have a right to be protected from discrimination. As taxpayers foot the bill for the costs of increased sick days and higher insurance premiums, public employers should have the option to refuse to hire smokers as a way of saving tax dollars.

For hospitals, supporters note that that some patients could be highly sensitive to smoke lingering in workers' clothes, or contend that health sector employers should have a right to promote healthy lifestyle choices among their workforce.

Opponents counter that the state should not allow employers to discriminate against employees based on legal activities they engage in on their own time. Others argue that smoking bans disproportionately affect lower-income people or those with less education, who are more likely to use tobacco. Other opponents express concerns that allowing some employers to refuse to hire smokers could constitute a slippery slope that eventually leads to hiring bans on people with diabetes, obesity or other conditions.

Should NH allow health care and public sector employers to refuse to hire smokers? Share your opinion in the comments below.