Tobacco Documents Online

THE LOS ANGELES DAILY JOURNAL Wedhrsdey. October'2M1 1984 L.A. Strengthens Draft Ord'inance. To CurbSrnoking Penal'ty for Retaliation RyGAII. DtANE COX Anti-smoklhg forees t.ame'out oD top'Nes- day tn the seesaw battle over bow strict a limit ~ oo smokiag 16 the workplace Los An- =eles wlll iadopt: The dty eouncU voted 67 to amend Itta pro» posediordinance so!thatthe eity attArneycan praaecute for a misdemeanor ibose employ- ers who retaliate agalaat'aoa-amoktng worft- ers wbo invoke the ordinance. A misdemeanor carries a penalty of iSOON flqeor six,months In jaU or both. Deputy City Attorney Jolatue Harkless, who bas.drafted varlous.erstoas of the ordi- nance, add she bad at:en no such clause in other cit'fes' brdlnances. "The fact it si there does not mean It will be putsued, or that con- victions will be won," ahe noted In an Inter- view following tbe vote. Designed to spare non-smokera from side- stream smoke, the ordinance requites pub- lic and private employers to promulgate written policies for all open areas where there are more than four workers. Other amendments adopted!'I1lesday ay a policy tAat' designates the entire area for smoking la . not' acceptable, and I tltat employers must make "I1lasodlableeftortb" to accommodate non-smokers' wlshea. Restaurants are expii- citly exemptedJ The amendments postpone until next '1ltesdaya final vot,e on the ordinance, which won tentative approval in : a weaker form Oct:16, The ordlnance's sponsor;, Councilman Marvin Braude, said the retaliationn amend- ment was prompted by news reports of a, i100,U0D lawsuit filed In May In! San Fran- cisco by a secretary; Claudia Marshall. The secretary alleged her boss, the co"owner of a kitchen and bathroom products wholesale: firm, fired her one half hour after she asked I the co-owner to stop smoking. San Francis co's ordinance went into effect !n 11'M arch. San Francisco lawyer L.loyd Aubry Jr., who mcatttly delivered a paper to 1 the ! ~ I.eague of California Cities on 30:anti-amok- tng ordinances statewide, confirmed the Los Angeles tietallatbn ~elattae is unique. Civil Ftemedibs. Aubry, a: member of the municipal lgnvw firm of (>rrlck„ Herrington & Sutcllffe, said that he has seen no such i protection in other cities' ordinances. But he questioned whether in practice It' would help non.srnok- ers. "Workers under flent:e!' already had a cause of. action to bring suit U they are dLs. . charged or demoted In violation of public pollcy: ' Rie said. (fleatrel'r. StWr Qo. is a 1982 Court of' Appeal decislon. ). A Braude aide disagreed with Aubry. "A person who has just been summarily ftred is hardly to a position to retain a lawyer and embark on lengthy litigation," deputy Glenn Barrsald. 9arr said employers may even benefit be- ca.tae the city attotsley's fevolvement could discourage frivolous lawsuits. The ordi- oance as now written "says It 1t against the law for the employ,er't 'domiaant' intent' in 'discharging , or in any way discrimtnating' to be to thwart the ban. The city attoroey won't proceed if ,that staadard isn't' met,•• he said. But even with the added penalty, Cotm, ciltQlan Ernanl' Bernardi told reporters '111tes, dayhe cortsiders the proposed ordinance tooo weak. What the Los Angeles version lacks itr a clause saying that a single non-smoker can .eto his or her employer's policy and force a total ban, Bernardilaid. •'San Fraaciaco has that and we don't so they still have tbe stanger veraiou," he com- mented. Bernardi has been : virtttally alone on the council in advocating an outrigklt prohibition on smoking in the worJtplace, restaurants. public restrooms, muaeams, pharmacies, ll- brarier, retail stores, and public meeting rooms - that is; anywhere except bomes; , tobacco stores and bars, and hotel'and motel! rooms and lobbies. Spirit of Compromise An early, stronger version of the current draft contained the retaliation clause and the one-person veto. But following,heavy tob- bytng by the tobacco 1bdur2ry and business community representatives, a,week ago the eounMl~ voted t}5 on a motion by Councilwo- man Pa6RusseU todrop both. City Hall lobbyist Bob Di'Venuti, tep- resenting the tobacco induatty, was quoted as saying that no law lt neoessary but the watered-down ordinance was "palatable.^ Braude, who for the past year has been seek- ing the strongest version for which he can win a cottaensus, disagreed. Itr'Ititesday's debate, Braude said that he would compromise by seeking to restore only the retaliation protection. He also won approval to change the wording that re- quired a."good faith" effort by employers to 11: a "reasonable" effort! "The lawyers we've ~ talked'to tell us it is very hard to prove bad' r J faith in court," be said! The three members who switched their LA votes this week to support Braude were Ber- nardli Pat Stevensoa,and Hal Bernson. Un- ~ like Bernardi, Stevenson and l Bernsonn had r~ sought weaker versions. Braude credited constituent pressure for his success Tuesday, and spoke Into tele- vision ~news cameras urging people to "keep ~ those phonecalla coming lh.' See Paqe 1!9 - SMOKING NN'-13'

C C'ity, Fortifies Non- Srrioking Proposal Continued from Page l . He said he anticipates more suspease next week before the ordinance wins final appro- val. Once the new law is ia place, Braade added that he would not be surpt'iswd'to see the tobacco indiistry launch a referendum to try to repeal' it: "Ttiey've got the ~ money to buy t,he petition signatures and they'tried It- in San Francisco," be said: "Iyos Angeles Is the second biggest city in the country. It's a model." During floor debate, Russell also refetmdd to the phone calls. She said she was amazed that callers thought smokers have ao. thdi- vidual rights. "Even criminals haverights," she toldher colleagues. And Bernson said in answer to an inquiry that he'd be,surprised tosee a tobacco indus- try referendum. "The way the public seems to feel, it could ... backfire and they'd end up with somethingstiffer.'"' The councl's overall vote on the amended proposal!was 1t}5. On the retaliation amend=. ment, besides Bernardi, Bernson. and Ste- venson, Braudp was joined by Cbur.cil. members Howard Finn, Joy Picus, Joel Wachs, and Zev Yaroslavsky. Those opposed to strengthening the pro- posed ordinance were Councilmembers Rus+ sell. David Cunningham. Robert Farrell, John Ferraro. Joan Milke Fiores. rMt' Snyder, and Csilbert Lindsay: Orange GountyRevives Anfi-SmokJng ODrdinance City Mms Sieats The Orange County Board of'Supervtsors voted luaanimously Tuesday to breathe new life sato their five-year-old'.ordtoaace limitr Ing smokdttg. The ordinance curreatly restrfcts smolt- tng only ta ~ county goverameat buildings. Under the modifications, there will be more signs posted in the ao-smoking areas, and department' heads are to designate smoking and non~smoking,areas. Supervisor Tom Riley told his colleagues he made the motion "in an attempt to im- prove the work environment' for 11,000 county employees i" Supervisor Bruce Nestande joined Riley in supporting the principle of stricter en- forcement, noting "an ordinance is no good ii itcan't be enforced." Nestande said thathe wants to look atthe possibilityof'extending the ordinance to in- clude,privatie buildings. r "I don't believe In continually regulating people's habits," argued Lindsay, who op- poses any anti-smoking ordinance. "I do rot smoke my cigars in the presence of ladiess without asking their permission and ... I think most men do that." NNI-1!4'