The defendant (Grusendorf), a city firefighter trainee, was fired for violating the terms of agreement (he signed) as a precondition of employment. This term of agreement stated that no trainee may smoke a cigarette, either on or off duty, for a period of one year from the time he started working for the city. The incident that precipitated his dismissal occurred during an unpaid lunch break (on a particularly stressful day) in which the defendant took about three puffs on a cigarette. Another employee witnessed it and reported the incident. A federal district court granted the city 's motion to dismiss the defendant's (Grusendorf) suit, and he appealed.
             1. Were Grusendorf's fourteenth Amendment rights violated when he was dismissed from his job on the grounds of smoking? No
             The court agrees with the defendant that cigarette smoking may be distinguished from the activities involving liberty or privacy that the Supreme Court has recognized as fundamental rights, we (the court) are not confident that this observation effectively disposes of Grusendorf's claim. Grusendorf argues on appeal that the non-smoking condition imposed by the Oklahoma City Fire Department required him to surrender his constitutional rights in the area of liberty and privacy. The rights of liberty and privacy that Grusendorf relies upon are not clearly spelled out in the constitution. They have been variously described as "penumbras" emanating from the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 1964), "zones [**4] of privacy" implicit in the fourteenth amendment's concept of liberty, Palko v. Connecticut,(1937), or simply as "the right to be let alone" Olmstead v. United States, (1928). The Supreme Court recognized these implicit rights when, for example, it supported the right of an individua
             ...