Hacker News Reader

Comment by dundarious | Hacker News Reader

A positive development, but quite funny considering staffers were let go based on confessing to past use in a background check. https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/19/politics/biden-white-house-st...

View on HN

I can fully want someone to not see jail time and still not want them as an employee; I believe some companies even discriminate against smokers.

If you can discriminate against smokers, which is a legal vice, can the employer discriminate on other legal vices, even taken in moderation, such as alcohol or caffeine, in a legal capacity?

I'm the furthest thing from a lawyer and this is just a question to people who may know. I understand the smoking thing is an insurance issue.

Unless it’s a protected class you can discriminate on it, from what I understand.

If they suspect that you’re using it as a stand-in for a protected class, you may be in trouble (not hiring smokers because blacks smoke, for example).

There may be edge cases where something is effectively a protected class. And it may vary from state to state.

I dabble in adult content creation and could absolutely get fired for it. It's not exactly a vice though.

Some states bar or limit employers from regulating off-duty conduct by employees. Some don't. Smoking is a common one because it affects insurance costs, but the same legal theory could probably be applied to alcohol or caffeine.

https://www.workplacefairness.org/off-duty-conduct

If you want to work at BYU, abstaining from coffee is a condition of employment. This goes for even for people who are not members of its sponsoring church. Just a few years ago, BYU almost lost its ROTC program because a non-LDS colonel didn't want to abide by the university's code [1].

[1] https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2017/08/29....

yes, in college I worked for a christian company that had a policy of firing you if they found out you drank at all.

at-will means at-will.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com