Final answer:
The fairness of refusing employment due to a history of drug abuse depends on the circumstances and the job requirements. Discrimination laws protect against hiring decisions based on certain protected classes but do not specifically mention drug abuse history. The ethical and legal aspects of hiring practices must comply with both employment and immigration laws.
Step-by-step explanation:
Whether it is unfair for a company to refuse to hire someone with a history of drug abuse falls into a gray area and can be seen as dependent on the circumstances. Hiring discrimination is illegal when it pertains to group membership that does not affect job performance (hiring discrimination). Questions regarding personal attributes that are not relevant to job performance such as marital status, race, and religion are prohibited by law. In cases like the Employment Division v. Smith, the issue of drug use intersected with religious freedoms, which complicated the legal view on whether employment decisions based on drug use violate personal rights. However, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects individuals against employment discrimination on the bases of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and does not explicitly cover drug abuse history as one of these protected classes.
With respect to the hiring of illegal workers and the subsequent unfair labor practices that may ensue, such as stealing wages or paying less than minimum wage, it is both illegal and unfair to engage in these practices. Ethical employment practices require adherence to labor laws, which means paying fair wages regardless of citizenship status. However, hiring illegal workers is in itself a violation of immigration laws and can lead to legal repercussions for employers.
When considering the broader implications of hiring practices, disparities in application of laws, such as differing state and federal laws on marijuana use, can create inconsistencies in how individuals are treated both in court and in employment scenarios. It raises a question of whether national standards should be established to ensure more consistent treatment across various jurisdictions.