Kensell v. State of Okl.
| Decision Date | 13 September 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-1361,82-1361 |
| Citation | 716 F.2d 1350 |
| Parties | Anthony KENSELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA; Oklahoma Department of Human Services; the Honorable George Nigh, Governor of Oklahoma; Reginald D. Barnes, Chairman, Oklahoma Public Welfare Commission; Lloyd E. Rader, Director, Oklahoma Department of Human Services; Clifford E. Burns, Executive Assistant Coordinator; Lowell E. Green, Executive Assistant Coordinator; Raymond Nance, Disability Insurance Unit Program Administrator; Thurma Fiegel, M.D., Chief Medical Consultant of Disability Insurance Unit; Peggy Ezernack, Disability Insurance Unit Supervisor, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Sylvia Marks-Barnett, Oklahoma City, Okl., for plaintiff-appellant.
David A. Brown, Oklahoma Dept. of Human Services, Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendant-appellee Oklahoma Dept. of Social Services.
Jan Eric Cartwright, Atty. Gen., John E. Douglas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendants-appellees Nigh and State of Okl.
Before SETH, Chief Judge and LOGAN, and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); Tenth Cir.R. 10(e). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiff L. Anthony Kensell appeals a judgment granting a motion to dismiss his amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Alleging that he suffers from respiratory and cardiovascular ailments, the plaintiff brought suit under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, claiming that the State of Oklahoma and various officers and employees of the State of Oklahoma violated his constitutional rights under the First, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments by failing to prohibit smoking in the area where plaintiff worked at the Oklahoma Department of Human Services. He sought damages and injunctive relief. 1
A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would entitle him to recover. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). We affirm the district court's dismissal of the complaint; clearly the plaintiff could not prove that he was deprived of a federal right.
The plaintiff asserts that the defendants' failure to provide a smoke-free workplace violated his First Amendment rights because the smoke interfered with his ability to think. In support of that argument, appellant cites only Rogers v. Okin, 478 F.Supp. 1342 (D.Mass.1979), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 634 F.2d 650 (1st Cir.1980), vacated sub nom. Mills v. Rogers, 457 U.S. 291, 102 S.Ct. 2442, 73 L.Ed.2d 16 (1982), a class action brought by patients at a Massachusetts state mental institution. Part of the relief those patients sought was an injunction against the forcible injection of psychotropic drugs. The district court held that the right to think was an aspect of the right of privacy, with its roots in the First Amendment, and that, absent an emergency, forcible injections of such drugs violated the patients' right to think. Id. at 1367.
The plaintiff also claims that by allowing smoking in his workplace the defendants assaulted him and thereby deprived him of his constitutional rights. In support he cites cases in which police and prison personnel have been held liable under section 1983 for assaults against persons in their custody. Finally, the plaintiff alleges that he was deprived of a property right in his state job because his only options were to endure cigarette smoke or quit. We note that the plaintiff still is an employee of the Department of Human Resources; thus, he has no constructive discharge claim. His contention that he must quit his job or endure the smoke is legally indistinguishable from his claim that his constitutional rights are violated by his being assaulted on the job by cigarette smoke.
The intrusions upon the plaintiff's person resulting from working with fellow servants who smoke is a far cry from forcible injections of mind altering drugs and assaults committed by police or prison officials to intimidate or punish persons in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clemmons v. Bohannon
...(10th Cir.1990) (quoting Whitley, 475 U.S. at 327, 106 S.Ct. at 1088). We are aware, of course, of our decision in Kensell v. Oklahoma, 716 F.2d 1350, 1351 (10th Cir.1983), where we held that a state's refusal to provide a smoke-free environment in a government workplace does not implicate ......
-
Gorman v. Moody, Civ. No. S 87-59
...The District Court held that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. In Kensell v. State of Oklahoma, 716 F.2d 1350 (10th Cir.1983), the court held that the Constitution does not empower the federal judiciary to impose nonsmoking rules in the workplace......
-
Avery v. Powell
...(1986). 9 Three courts have addressed the constitutionality of exposure to ETS in non-Eighth Amendment contexts. See Kensell v. Oklahoma, 716 F.2d 1350 (10th Cir.1983); Federal Employees for Non-Smokers Rights (FENSR) v. United States, 446 F.Supp. 181 (D.D.C.1978); Gasper v. Louisiana Stadi......
-
Amoco Production Co. v. Douglas Energy Co., Inc.
...unless it appears that the defendants can prove no set of facts that would entitle them to the relief requested. Kensell v. State of Oklahoma, 716 F.2d 1350 (10th Cir.1983). Defendants' position that a cause of action of speculation is cognizable under Kansas law is in part based on the pri......
-
The Legal Rights of Nonsmokers in the Workplace
...amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Gasper court held that there was no such constitutional right. Accord, Kensell v. Oklahoma, 716 F.2d 1350 (10th Cir. 1983) (political question); Federal Employees for Non-Smokers' Rights (FENSR) v. United States, 446 F. Supp. 181 (D.D.C. 1978), aff'd......
-
What Employers Need to Know About Smoking in the Workplace
...v. Louisiana Stadium and Exposition Dist., 418 F.Supp. 716 (E.D. La. 1976), affd, 577 F.2d 897 (5th Cir. 1978). 41. Kensell v. Oklahoma, 716 F.2d 1350 (10th Cir. 1983). 42. BNA Policy and Practice Series, Bulletin to Management, "SHRM-BAN Survey No. 55, Smoking in the Workplace: 1991" (Aug.......