I don’t know why I didn’t think of this earlier, or why it hasn’t happened yet……A Smokers Discrimination Lawsuit.

Because what exactly is going on here when a Major Hotel does not offer Smoking rooms for the smoker ? Discrimination pure and simple. Is the smoker doing anything illegal. Of course not. Then why the discrimination?

The hotels argument will be that it increases costs to make the room ready for a non-smoker. (I know because I just stayed in a San Francisco Holiday Inn, and there were 3 separate little reminders in the room, that anyone caught smoking will be forced to pay a $250.00 “cleaning” fee.)

And if it does happen to smell (because of the Hotels faulty ventilation system), does that mean they would also charge $250.00 if the room is left with offensive Body Odor ??

This is very dangerous territory if I were the Owner of a Chain of hotels. Discriminatory lawsuits are nothing to laugh at.

Additionally we are talking about a Lawsuit against the Local Health Dept. cause they are the ones forcing Hotels to adapt this measure.

Their arguments in court would not stand a chance in court because of the Landmark decision in 1992, where a Federal Judge ruled the EPA had manipulated their studies on the effects of Second Hand Smoke.

The topic of discrimination has been discussed thoroughly on other threads here, most recently I believe is this one. To put it simply, a smoker cannot sue for discrimination based on the theory presented.9

Additionally we are talking about a Lawsuit against the Local Health Dept. cause they are the ones forcing Hotels to adapt this measure.
If a hotel is posting these smoking notices with a state statute or law, then yes the state or health department is where your lawsuit should be focused. However, that would be a longer and more difficult case to fight since the government is behind this rule. As you may already know, hotels do charge additional taxes and fees for its guests. And to top things off, unless you are resident of the state where this law exists, you may have trouble establishing standing to fight the case.

I think you are referring to the 1998 EPA Case where judge Osteen argued against the conclusions of the 1992 EPA report. There are a few studies out there to look at, here's another one. The argument against the law and faulty science is lost once a law is passed, but that does not mean one should stop trying to prove their case. It is just much harder to overturn an existing law than it is to make a new one.

Unfortunately, it's legal in the USA to discriminate against smokers and now the obese. There's no US law that makes discrimination based on lifestyle choices illegal.

I'm sure I'd have a definite case if I neva smoked but if a hotel denied me to pay to stay in a room for even one night based on racial reasons...discrimination against race is definitely illegal. But it should be illegal for a hotel to discriminate against someone for choosing to smoke.

The CBLC says she understands your frustration but legally you are off base. Smoking is not a fundamental right nor a protected priviledge. It is a private business and they can discriminate at will unless you are part of a protected class.

For instance, a hotel in Nashville may refuse to serve people from OH and that is legal, It is bad business practice, but legal. Now do that to a protected class and all legal hell will break lose.

Our only legal argument is based upon private property rights and that is a fundamental right.