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. Yes diversity is so very important. With justice Rucker off ... the court is too white. Still too male. No Hispanic justice. No LGBT justice. And there are other checkboxes missing as well. This will not do. I say hold the seat until a physically handicapped Black Lesbian of Hispanic heritage and eastern religious creed with bipolar issues can be located. Perhaps an international search, with a preference for third world candidates, is indicated. A non English speaker would surely increase our diversity quotient!!!

  2. First, I want to thank Justice Rucker for his many years of public service, not just at the appellate court level for over 25 years, but also when he served the people of Lake County as a Deputy Prosecutor, City Attorney for Gary, IN, and in private practice in a smaller, highly diverse community with a history of serious economic challenges, ethnic tensions, and recently publicized but apparently long-standing environmental health risks to some of its poorest residents. Congratulations for having the dedication & courage to practice law in areas many in our state might have considered too dangerous or too poor at different points in time. It was also courageous to step into a prominent and highly visible position of public service & respect in the early 1990's, remaining in a position that left you open to state-wide public scrutiny (without any glitches) for over 25 years. Yes, Hoosiers of all backgrounds can take pride in your many years of public service. But people of color who watched your ascent to the highest levels of state government no doubt felt even more as you transcended some real & perhaps some perceived social, economic, academic and professional barriers. You were living proof that, with hard work, dedication & a spirit of public service, a person who shared their same skin tone or came from the same county they grew up in could achieve great success. At the same time, perhaps unknowingly, you helped fellow members of the judiciary, court staff, litigants and the public better understand that differences that are only skin-deep neither define nor limit a person's character, abilities or prospects in life. You also helped others appreciate that people of different races & backgrounds can live and work together peacefully & productively for the greater good of all. Those are truths that didn't have to be written down in court opinions. Anyone paying attention could see that truth lived out every day you devoted to public service. I believe you have been a "trailblazer" in Indiana's legal community and its judiciary. I also embrace your belief that society's needs can be better served when people in positions of governmental power reflect the many complexions of the population that they serve. Whether through greater understanding across the existing racial spectrum or through the removal of some real and some perceived color-based, hope-crushing barriers to life opportunities & success, movement toward a more reflective representation of the population being governed will lead to greater and uninterrupted respect for laws designed to protect all peoples' rights to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. Thanks again for a job well-done & for the inevitable positive impact your service has had - and will continue to have - on countless Hoosiers of all backgrounds & colors.

  3. Diversity is important, but with some limitations. For instance, diversity of experience is a great thing that can be very helpful in certain jobs or roles. Diversity of skin color is never important, ever, under any circumstance. To think that skin color changes one single thing about a person is patently racist and offensive. Likewise, diversity of values is useless. Some values are better than others. In the case of a supreme court justice, I actually think diversity is unimportant. The justices are not to impose their own beliefs on rulings, but need to apply the law to the facts in an objective manner.

  4. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

  5. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

ADVERTISEMENT