Drug screen now includes screen for nicotine. Is this legal?

[Psychtrish39, BSN, RN]

I was filling out an application for a local hospital and as I was getting ready to submit my application it was in very small print that in addition to other substances to be tested for in a drug screen that they would test for presence of nicotine and if found the candidate would not be hired under any circumstances and the offer would be withdrawn.

I am not a smoker but I was absolutely flabbergasted at this. I know as a nurse and a person being a smoker is bad for your health but so are other things in life that human beings do to their bodies.

My question is this legal ? I mean nicotine is a legal substance for adults to use. This particular hospital system has so many openings for nurses that are never filled perhaps this is why. I know many nurses and doctors, and EMTs that smoke and are great clinicians. I know for years hospital systems have told employees that they cant smoke even in their automobiles on hospital grounds but to do this is just awful in this time of not enough nurses anyway. I am thinking this for health related cost in benefits but this is system wide whether you are benefit eligible or not.. Your thoughts on this are appreciated.

[caliotter3]

I have heard of some places that mandated no smoking rules for their employees and they would assist the people with smoking cessation programs but on the other hand, would terminate those who did not comply. The employer has the right to set some workplace rules and I guess this is one of them.

[heartflutter, ADN, BSN]

As far as I understand it, hospitals may set their own policies and smokers are not a protected group. If a hospital doesn't want staff transmitting carcinogenic substances via third hand smoke to patients, it's their decision to not hire employees that may endanger patients.

On an opinionated note, I don't think hospitals allow you to drink when you're at work (regardless of break time), so why would smoking be okay? Leave it at home and stop subjecting other people to your bad habits. People have been blindly blaming "the government", but this is purely policy laid down by the hospitals and companies that run them. Third hand smoke needs to be addressed before it becomes as big an issue as second hand smoke.

[Katie5]

If it's not- it should be.

[Noimanurse]

Smoking is a horrible idea or habit to take up, luckily I didn't take that one up, however, it is legal for adults to smoke. I understand not smoking at work, I strongly feel health care facilities should be smoke free, but my guess is that nicotine probably stays in the system for awhile. Just because you don't smoke at work, doesn't mean your blood will be nicotine free if you had a smoke at home. maybe this is one reason why there are so many nurse positions at this facility.

[merlee]

I heartily disagree with the no nicotine policy. I am a total non-smoker, and avoid smoking areas whenever I can.

However, it is not always entirely possible. I was a home-health nurse for many years, and many patients and/or others in the house were smokers. Even when they were kind enough to stop while I was there, the air in the house was already saturated.

So if someone wanted me to take a drug screen and it came up positive for nicotine because I was in a house filled with it YESTERDAY and I was not hired for that reason, I would be very upset.

What if there is someone in my house that smokes? That makes me ineligible for a job?

And who will check all this out?

No, I don't think nicotine should be there in the test unless they can prove that I INHALED!!!!

[Nurse1966]

The point (I believe) of the OP's post is: smoking is legal. drinking is legal. Can the hospital mandate what the employee does when they're not at work. Are they going to check and see if you had a glass of wine after dinner last night? Alcohol causes all kinds of health related diseases and can drain financial resources, are they going to check on that? No one is saying that smokers should be allowed to smoke AT work, but what about after? Tanning isn't good for us either, perhaps we should intervene if someone comes to work looking a bit too tan? Or someone's butt is a little too big, maybe we should check their cholesterol. Someone have a new baby and not breastfeeding? Maybe we should call social services, since we all KNOW breast milk is better. This insanity has got to stop, and sooner rather than later, I hope.

Yes, I agree that hospital's have the right to hire/fire whomever they want. But I think it's just plain wrong, to dictate what people do legally on their own time. I would not work for a company like that. Let the flaming begin!

[Altra, BSN, RN]

News of companies denying employment to smokers has been around for the last decade or so, and the trend seems to be accelerating. Smokers are not a legally protected group as defined by the EEOC or other applicable federal regulations.

[Kateoh82]

I know at the Cleveland Clinic you have to submit to a nicotine test. It is not taken lightly there at all and basically one should not apply there if they are a smoker. I don't work there, I have just been told this by a friend of mine who works there.

[Esme12, ASN, BSN, RN]

It's legal until it is challenged. Next thing they will demand what brand of food to eat and clothes to wear. You'll be too tall, too short, top fat, too thin.This is a slippery slope here......we are supposed to have certain inalienable rights. Can they next tell you where to go to church or not hire you? What I do on my own time is my business as long as it is legal....talk about big brother butting in......this whole senario frightens me. My ancestors fought and lost their lives fighting to wipe out communism for generations...........It is discrimination and when you start to isolate and punish a section of society with humiliation and seclusion.

Prohabition didn't work on alcohol..........but then again I'm for legalizing marajuana and taxing it to solve the financial crisis.

This does seem to be a trend until someone sues.....

https://allnurses.com/nursing-news/hospitals-shift-smoking-532948.html

[netglow, ASN, RN]

Well, if you smoke they equate that with being a burden to your coworkers. It's just assumed that you will want a break during the day, and companies don't want you to have that break. Also, you are an attendence risk... calling out sick, etc. or, if worse the big C.

The number one reason? They have negotiated their corporate health insurance stating that they do not have employees that smoke.

[rn/writer, RN]

To answer the original question--yes, it is legal for an employer to screen for nicotine. And, yes, it is legal for them to deny employment if nicotine is found.

Smokers are not a protected class, therefore, discrimination against them in the form of denying employment does not violate any federal laws.

The employers who choose to do this testing are not saying a smoker can't work. They are saying such a person can't work for them.

Perhaps, if the economy were not so tight, employers would have a difficult time filling all their open positions with this kind of ban in place. But because it's a "buyer's market," they can implement this kind of restriction and still have many more applicants than they need.

Complaining about the unfairness of this situation is pointless. Rather than shaking a fist and crying foul, anyone who opposes anti-nicotine policies should try to change the laws so that smokers are added to the protected classes. Or they should find some other way to address the conflict that might actually accomplish something.