## Facts

- Paul Smith, a nonsmoking employee, worked in an open office area where many coworkers smoked while working.
- Beginning in 1975, Smith experienced serious respiratory discomfort and other severe symptoms allegedly triggered by workplace tobacco smoke.
- Physicians diagnosed Smith with a severe adverse reaction to tobacco smoke and advised him to avoid exposure.
- Smith complained to Western Electric; the company relocated him multiple times, but the new locations also had substantial tobacco smoke.
- In 1978, Smith was told not to file further complaints.
- In 1980, Western Electric adopted a written smoking policy aimed at separating smokers and nonsmokers, but Smith alleged the policy was not implemented and air quality did not improve.
- Smith filed a company “handicapped” declaration based on his susceptibility to tobacco smoke.
- Western Electric allegedly refused to separate smokers or restrict smoking to non-work areas, offering Smith only (1) continued work with a respirator or (2) transfer to a lower-paying smoke-free job.
- Smith sought injunctive relief to prevent exposure to tobacco smoke at work and to prevent adverse employment action based on his medical condition, alleging no adequate remedy at law and breach of the employer’s duty to provide a reasonably safe workplace.

## Issues

1. Whether the petition’s allegations, taken as true under Missouri pleading standards, stated a claim for injunctive relief based on the employer’s alleged failure to provide a reasonably safe workplace free from harmful tobacco smoke exposure.
2. Whether federal occupational safety law preempted a state common-law claim seeking workplace changes related to tobacco smoke exposure.
3. Whether the allegations plausibly showed irreparable harm and lack of an adequate remedy at law sufficient to allow a request for injunctive relief to proceed past dismissal.

## Decision

- The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim and remanded for further proceedings.
- Applying liberal review of pleadings, the court held the petition invoked substantive Missouri law that could support relief if the alleged facts were proven.
- The court held federal occupational safety regulation did not require dismissal on preemption grounds at the pleading stage.

## Legal Principles

- On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, Missouri courts construe the petition liberally, accept well-pleaded facts and reasonable inferences as true, and resolve reasonable doubt about sufficiency in the plaintiff’s favor.
- Injunctive relief may be available where a plaintiff alleges ongoing or threatened irreparable harm and no adequate remedy at law.
- Employers owe a common-law duty to use reasonable care to provide employees a reasonably safe workplace; alleged exposure to a workplace health hazard may state a claim for breach of that duty.
- Federal regulation of workplace safety does not preempt state common-law remedies absent clear congressional intent to occupy the field or an actual conflict between federal requirements and the state-law relief sought.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that a nonsmoking employee with a medically documented sensitivity to tobacco smoke alleged sufficient facts to proceed on a claim for injunctive relief grounded in the employer’s duty to provide a reasonably safe workplace, and that federal occupational safety regulation did not bar the claim at the pleading stage.


Smith v. W. Elec. Co., 643 S.W.2d 10 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982)