CourtCases2010

The city claims that the costs of higher premiums and

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: ion, the objective is to reduce both health costs and the [**2] amount of productivity lost to absenteeism. n2 58 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n1 The Florida Clean Indoor Air Act (FCIAA) does not preempt the City's employment regulation. The intent of the FCIAA was to provide a uniform code restricting indoor smoking in public places. § 386.202, Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1992). The FCIAA preempts all local ordinances dealing with the subject of restriction of indoor smoking. §386.209, Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1992). Regulation 1-46 only attempts to regulate the City's employment practices and is not concerned with regulating indoor smoking. n2 The regulation recognizes that the Surgeon General of the United States has declared the use of tobacco products hazardous to an individual's health. The regulation concludes that poor health, as a result of tobacco use, increases the premium costs for insurance plans and decreases employee productivity. The City claims that the costs of higher premiums and lower productivity are eventually borne by the taxpayers of the City of North Miami. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In May 1990, Kurtz was notified that there [**3] was an opening for a clerk-typist. At her interview, she was informed of Regulation 1-46. Kurtz told the interviewer that she was a smoker and could not truthfully sign an affidavit to comply with the regulation. The interviewer told Kurtz that she would not be considered for employment until she was smoke free for one year. Kurtz filed a complaint seeking to enjoin enforcement of the regulation and asking for a declaratory judgment finding the regulation unconstitutional. Kurtz moved for summary judgment, and the City filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. The City filed numerous exhibits supporting the position that smoking is hazardous to an individual's health and that the economic costs of hiring a smoker are higher than the costs of hiring a non-smoker. The cour...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online