Smith v. Western Electric Co.
37 A.L.R. 4th 473, 1982 Mo. App. LEXIS 3330, 643 S.W.2d 10 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer breaches its common law duty to provide a reasonably safe workplace when it fails to take reasonable measures to control tobacco smoke, which it knows is hazardous to an employee's health, and injunctive relief is an appropriate remedy for ongoing irreparable harm not adequately compensable by money damages.
Facts:
- Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant since 1950 and has worked in Defendant's Missouri branch since 1967, sharing an open office area with other employees, many of whom smoke tobacco products.
- In 1975, Plaintiff began to experience serious respiratory tract discomfort as a result of inhaling tobacco smoke in the workplace, with a subsequent medical evaluation determining he suffers a severe adverse reaction causing symptoms like sore throat, nausea, dizziness, and blackouts.
- Plaintiff first complained to Defendant about the tobacco smoke in 1975, leading Defendant to move him to different locations within the plant, but no improvement resulted because each location contained significant amounts of tobacco smoke.
- In 1978, Defendant informed Plaintiff that he should no longer submit complaints about the smoke through its anonymous complaint procedure as Defendant would not process them.
- In April 1980, Defendant adopted a smoking policy aimed at protecting both smokers and nonsmokers by making a reasonable effort to separate the groups in work areas, but Defendant failed to implement its policy effectively, resulting in no improvement in workplace air quality.
- In August 1980, Plaintiff filed a Handicapped Declaration Statement that he was handicapped by his susceptibility to tobacco smoke, after which Defendant offered him the choice of continuing to work in the same location and wear an ineffective respirator or applying for a job in the smoke-free computer room, which would entail a pay decrease of about $500 per month.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a petition in the trial court (court of first instance) seeking an injunction to prevent his employer from exposing him to tobacco smoke in the workplace and from affecting his pay or employment conditions due to his medical reaction.
- The trial court dismissed Plaintiff's petition, ruling that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- Plaintiff appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Missouri Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court), arguing that his petition invoked legal principles entitling him to relief and that injunctive relief was appropriate.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employee's petition state a claim for injunctive relief against an employer, based on the common law duty to provide a safe workplace, when the employer knowingly permits co-workers to expose the employee to hazardous tobacco smoke that causes increasingly severe health issues, and has available reasonable means to eliminate the hazard?
Opinions:
Majority - Dowd, Presiding Judge
Yes, an employee's petition does state a claim for injunctive relief against an employer when the employer knowingly permits co-workers to expose the employee to hazardous tobacco smoke, thereby breaching its common law duty to provide a safe workplace, and the employee faces irreparable health deterioration for which money damages are an inadequate remedy. Missouri law establishes that an employer owes a duty to the employee to use all reasonable care to provide a reasonably safe workplace and protect them from avoidable perils. The plaintiff's allegations, accepted as true for the purpose of reviewing dismissal, demonstrate that co-worker tobacco smoke is hazardous, the defendant knows this, and has the authority, ability, and reasonable means to control smoking in work areas. Therefore, the employer's failure to eliminate this hazardous condition constitutes a breach of its duty to provide a reasonably safe workplace, consistent with precedents where employers were held liable for unsafe air conditions like dust or fumes (e.g., McDaniel v. Kerr, DeMarco v. United States). Injunctive relief is appropriate because the petition alleges irreparable harm to the plaintiff's health that cannot be adequately compensated by money damages, especially since the harm is ongoing and has not yet resulted in full-blown disease or injury. The court reasoned that plaintiff should not be required to await the harm’s fruition before seeking a remedy, and the recurrent risk of harm would necessitate a multiplicity of lawsuits. Finally, the court found that federal law, specifically the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), does not preempt state common law in this matter, as OSHA explicitly states it does not affect common law regarding employee injuries and does not prevent state courts from asserting jurisdiction over issues for which no OSHA standard is in effect.
Analysis:
This case is highly significant as it affirms that an employer's common law duty to provide a safe workplace extends to mitigating known environmental hazards like secondhand tobacco smoke, even in the absence of specific statutory regulations. It broadens the scope of employer liability for workplace conditions affecting employee health and establishes that injunctive relief is an appropriate remedy for ongoing irreparable harm that is difficult to quantify or compensate monetarily. The decision empowers employees to seek proactive protection from health hazards rather than waiting for full-blown injury, which could lead to more preventative measures by employers in various contexts where workplace environmental factors impact health.
