State And Federal Systems

State and Federal Systems

State and federal laws differ. Company regulations are governed to create a suitable working environment for both employers and employees. Violations of human rights on the job can lead to severe consequences such as lawsuits. Initially the lawsuit is presented to the state if no settlement, or an appeal on settlement is made then it can continue to federal court. The reason for an appeal, by an employee or employer, is due to the various interpretations of state and federal laws. There are many ways that state and federal laws differ.

Smoking regulations alter from state to state. In Florida smoking is not permissible in restaurants and most public places. For example, BLR Businesses Legal Reports writes the following:

The Florida Clean Air Act makes it unlawful to smoke in a public place, except in designated smoking areas. Places of employment are included in the definition of a "public place," as are government buildings, courthouses, mass transit vehicles and stations, libraries, museums, theaters, grocery stores, and restaurants seating more than 50 people. Areas designated for smoking must be clearly marked and no more than half the floor space of an enclosed indoor area can be designated for smoking. All employees working in a designated smoking area must agree with the designation. If a single worker objects, an area cannot become a designated smoking area.

Nationally there are no bans involving smoking in public places, there is however a ban on smoking in federal facilities. Most states have begun regulating smoking in workplaces to reduce the amount of worker absences and developed programs o help those who like to quit smoking. As mentioned before this is not a federal requirement rather a personal decision in order to increase work productivity.

The following case represents a scenario that deals with smoking on the job, and it is documented by Melissa Trujillo, 2006, Associated Press:

BOSTON -- A man has sued his former employer, saying it violated his privacy and civil rights when it fired him because he smokes cigarettes. Scott Rodrigues, 30, says he was fired from a lawn-care job he had for several weeks at The Scotts Co. after a drug test came up positive for nicotine. He said he wasn't told he would be tested for the substance and was told the co Rodrigues' lawsuit, filed in Suffolk Superior Court, claims the company violated his rights under a state privacy law barring unreasonable, substantial or serious interference of privacy, and under other state law. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and lawyer's fees.

"In more general terms, this case challenges the right of an employer to control employees' personal lives and activities by prohibiting legal private conduct the employer finds to be dangerous, distasteful or disagreeable," the lawsuit said.

The Scotts Co., a subsidiary of Scotts-Miracle Gro Co. of Marysville, Ohio, instituted a policy early this year forbidding smoking to promote healthful lifestyles and hold down insurance costs. In the 20 states that allow such policies - including Massachusetts - the company refuses to hire smokers and tests all new employees for nicotine, said Jim King, Scotts' vice president for corporate communications and investor relations.

"It's on our Web site. It's on our terms of employment when they are hired," King said. "We make it very clear to people what the expectation is related to tobacco use." But Rodrigues said that he never knew he would be tested for nicotine and that he chewed Nicorette gum on his way to the drug test. His Massachusetts employers also knew he smoked because he had worked for the company previously, he said. Rodrigues said he never smoked during work or while on break. "I didn't think you couldn't smoke at home," he said. Rodrigues' lawyer, Harvey Schwartz, said companies can require drug tests if they believe their employees are using the substances at work or if drug use would seriously interfere with the job. Neither is true in this case to justify a test for nicotine, he said.

Overtime compensation

...