Is it discrimination for an employer to disqualify a nicotine user from employment?

Inviting Conversation for February 9, 2010

“As if higher tobacco taxes, steeper health insurance premiums and smoke-free workplaces weren’t enough, tobacco users have one more financial incentive to kick the habit — missed job opportunities. Starting Feb. 1, [Chattanooga, Tennessee’s] Memorial Hospital no longer will hire people who use tobacco products, making the hospital one of a small number of employers nationwide that consider smoking status in job applicants. Under the new rule, which does not affect current Memorial employees, those offered employment at the hospital will be tested for nicotine during their required drug test, a human resources officer said. Even nicotine gum or the patch would make a potential employee ineligible”
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2010/jan/18/smokers-need-not-apply-job/.

Unquestionably, there have been many debates over the years about smoking.

There have been debates about smoking in bars, restaurants and other public places. There have been debates over who is responsible for paying for the medical costs as lifelong smokers become older. A recent CDC study showed that children who are exposed to second-hand smoke are “at increased risk for bronchitis, pneumonia, ear infections, severe asthma, respiratory symptoms, and slowed lung growth”

http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/fact_sheets/smoking.htm.

The actions of Chattanooga’s Memorial Hospital poses an interesting question. As companies face increasing health care costs, and as the debate continues to rage on Capitol Hill about how to address our health care crisis, how much latitude should companies be given with regard to hiring smokers? Is it discrimination for an employer to disqualify a nicotine user, even someone trying to quit, from employment?