30 ms·

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

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.

vertex-four 7y ago
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.
- dylz 7y ago
  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.
  - bananocurrency 7y ago
    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.
    - layoutIfNeeded 7y ago
      >22 year old with 10 years experience Hmmm.
      - jakear 7y ago
        Do you not believe someone can begin to gain coding experience at age 12?
        layoutIfNeeded 7y ago
        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.
        nationsobviou 7y ago
        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.
        shantly 7y ago
        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.
      - nicoburns 7y ago
        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.
  - sk5t 7y ago
    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.
    - pacaro 7y ago
      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)
      - sk5t 7y ago
        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.
astura 7y ago
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_protected.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/smallbusiness/faq/who_is_prot...
- jnwatson 7y ago
  It isn’t an EEOC violation, but possibly an ADA one. Discriminating against nicotine addicts might be illegal.
  - usefulcat 7y ago
    Are you saying that nicotine addiction is or might be classified as a disability under the ADA?
    - JackRabbitSlim 7y ago
      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?
  - jakear 7y ago
    > 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 https://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm#anchor62335
    - Johnny555 7y ago
      what major life activities does it substantially inhibit? Apparently, holding a job.
butterisgood 7y ago
It’s legal in almost half the United States.
JohnFen 7y ago
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.
- netsharc 7y ago
  I suppose someone's going to start the Church of Marlboro soon...
- AlgorithmicTime 7y ago
  Come join my Church of the Smoking Christ. Tobacco is an a sacrament, in addition to wine, beer, and whiskey.
ChrisMarshallNY 7y ago
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.
MisterBastahrd 7y ago
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.
_0ffh 7y ago
>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.

vertex-four 7y ago

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.

dylz 7y ago
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.
- bananocurrency 7y ago
  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.
  - layoutIfNeeded 7y ago
    >22 year old with 10 years experience Hmmm.
    - jakear 7y ago
      Do you not believe someone can begin to gain coding experience at age 12?
      - layoutIfNeeded 7y ago
        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.
        nationsobviou 7y ago
        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.
        shantly 7y ago
        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.
    - nicoburns 7y ago
      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.
- sk5t 7y ago
  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.
  - pacaro 7y ago
    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)
    - sk5t 7y ago
      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.

astura 7y ago

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_protected.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/smallbusiness/faq/who_is_prot...

jnwatson 7y ago
It isn’t an EEOC violation, but possibly an ADA one. Discriminating against nicotine addicts might be illegal.
- usefulcat 7y ago
  Are you saying that nicotine addiction is or might be classified as a disability under the ADA?
  - JackRabbitSlim 7y ago
    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?
- jakear 7y ago
  > 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 https://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm#anchor62335
  - Johnny555 7y ago
    what major life activities does it substantially inhibit? Apparently, holding a job.

butterisgood 7y ago

It’s legal in almost half the United States.

JohnFen 7y ago

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.

netsharc 7y ago
I suppose someone's going to start the Church of Marlboro soon...
AlgorithmicTime 7y ago
Come join my Church of the Smoking Christ. Tobacco is an a sacrament, in addition to wine, beer, and whiskey.

ChrisMarshallNY 7y ago

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.

MisterBastahrd 7y ago

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.

_0ffh 7y ago

>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.