ILNews

IBA: Indiana's No-Smoking Law and Potential Penalties to Employers for Failure to Adhere

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By Christopher S. Drewry,

Drewry Simmons Vornehm LLP

The IndyBar Labor & Employment Section posts articles written by Executive Committee members on its indybar.org section page throughout the year. Check out one article below and visit the section webpage at http://www.indybar.org/interest-groups/labor-employment-law/.

Back in March (and mixed in with other notable legislative changes like Right to Work and Restricting Access to Conviction Records), Governor Mitch Daniels signed into law a bill imposing statewide restrictions on smoking in public places. This law went into effect on July 1, 2012, and will affect all Indiana employers. While employers likely have already taken certain actions under this new law, the failure to follow the provisions could result in steep penalties, up to and including $10,000 in fines.

If you recall, smoking is now prohibited in most Indiana workplaces (exceptions being places like riverboats, horse racing facilities and other gaming facilities, retail tobacco stores, and bars that do not employ individuals under the age of 18 or allow individuals under the age of 21, other than employees, to enter, among other things). The law requires employers to prohibit smoking in areas within eight feet of a public entrance to a “place of employment” or a “public place.”

Additionally, since July 1st, employers have had additional obligations beyond merely prohibiting smoking. First, all employees and prospective employees must be informed of the smoking prohibition applying to the place of employment. This could be accomplished by including it in the employee handbook, or for prospective employees, by inserting a statement about the policy in the employment application. Next, employers are required to remove any and all ashtrays and smoking paraphernalia from all areas of public places and places of employment where such smoking is prohibited. Lastly, employers must post “conspicuous signs” at each public entrance which says “State Law Prohibits Smoking Within 8 Feet of this Entrance.” For those businesses that fall under the exception to this prohibition, they too must post conspicuous signs that read “WARNING: Smoking Is Allowed In This Establishment” or some other similar language.

While an individual who smokes where prohibited commits a Class B infraction (or up to a Class A infraction with at least three prior infractions), employers too may be penalized where they fail to abide by the three aforementioned proactive obligations. State agencies, including the State Department of Health, county health departments, and law enforcement agencies can issue fines ranging from $1,000 for a first violation up to $10,000 if there are three violations, and employers may also be enjoined for a failure to abide by the provisions of the law.

Finally, one other potential issue for employers in dealing with the prohibition of smoking is the fact that Indiana also has a statute prohibiting discrimination against smokers in employment and hiring. Further, the Americans with Disabilities Act may come into play for individuals who suffer diseases as a result of smoking.

Ultimately, it is important that employers be aware of the smoking ban and to implement the proper procedures in adherence of the rules. Additionally, it is important to note that the state law specifically authorizes local governments to enact more restrictive ordinances. Therefore, employers must follow the requirements of the more restrictive local ordinances over the state ban. Whether it involves the employer’s upfront obligations with the state law or other local ordinance, the smoking policies that have been put into place, or the enforcement of rules, counsel should take notice of the potential issues that can arise with the no-smoking law and ensure that their clients are in compliance.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT