WWYD American Express with Medical Costs Rising, a Member of the Board

WWYD American Express With medical costs rising, a member of the board of directors notes that some companies refuse to hire smokers and that the board should discuss this option. Nationwide, about 6,000 companies refuse to hire smokers. Weyco, an employee benefits company in Michigan, requires applicants take a nicotine test. The Cleveland Clinic doesn't hire smokers nor does the Massachusetts Hospital Association. The association's CEO says, "Smoking is a personal choice, and … I have a personal choice within the law about who we hire and who we don't." Costs are driving the trend to not hire smokers. According to the Centers for Disease Control, a smoker costs about $4,000 more a year to employ because of increased health care costs and lost productivity due to smoke breaks. This makes smoking, to some experts, "the biggest factor in controllable health-care costs." While few would disagree about the costs, others argue it is wrong to not hire smokers. Jay Whitehead, publisher of a magazine for human resources managers, says, "There is discrimination at many companies … against people who smoke." Paul Sherer, a smoker who was fired on the job after less than a week, says, "Not hiring smokers affects millions of people and puts them in the same category as woman able to bear children, that is, people who contribute to higher health care costs. It's unfair." Law professor Don Garner believes that not hiring smokers is "an overreaction on the part of employers whose interest is cutting costs. If someone has the ability to do the job, he should get it. … Not hiring smokers is 'respiratory apartheid.'" With a board meeting just a month away, you've got to prepare for questions. The board is interested in making good decisions for the company, but "doing the right thing" is also one of its core values. When it comes to smokers, surveys reveal that firms have clearly decided that reducing smoking at work, or hiring fewer smokers, is in their best interest. What's changed in the last decade is that rather than minimize smoking at work, companies are now more likely to minimize smokers by not hiring them. The key driver is costs. According to the Centers for Disease Control, smoking costs businesses $157 billion a year in expenses that are directly related to smoking-related illnesses or deaths.
On that basis, not hiring smokers makes fiscal sense-but is it legal? Federal law suggests that it is. Unlike race, gender, ethnicity, religion, and sexual preference, smokers are not a protected class. Furthermore, smokers are not protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act. However, while federal laws can allow employers to not hire smokers, approximately 30 states have made it illegal to not hire smokers. Lifestyle-discrimination laws prevent employers from using nonwork behavior (i.e., behavior that occurs outside of work hours such as smoking) to not hire employees.
More specifically, "smokism," discriminating against people because they smoke, is defined as "the prejudice, discrimination or denial of justice and fair treatment by individuals or institutions against people who smoke a tobacco related product." Not hiring smokers would clearly be smokism. And if it's not smoking, can it be beer or cheeseburgers?
Another key part of any kind of discrimination is that nonperformance relevant criteria are used to make decisions about who to hire, fire, train, or promote in a company. Viewed from this perspective, is there a significant difference between ageism, sexism, racism, and smokism? In each "ism," non-performance relevant criteria, such as age, sex, race, and whether one smokes, are used to make decisions about people at work. Refer to WWYD American Express. Because the board members will not be responsible for hiring and firing American Express employees, their decision has a very low:

A) magnitude of consequences
B) social consensus
C) proximity of effect
D) temporal immediacy
E) concentration of effect