Comments on: Employee allowed to sue over co-worker’s perfume

By: Miles

Miles — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 15:45:31 +0000

When I read “MJ’s” response, I thought I had written it. Everything she/he said I have experienced exactly. Many people with MCS can tolerate soap, which is all one needs to not smell badly. For those who rely on perfume to feel acceptable, I wonder why one would favor no-smoking in the workplace, but not care about the damage some scents can do to a person. This issue should not reach the courts, but , since employers and/or employees won’t accommodate, it will.

And I too do not go into retail stores where perfume is sprayed or scented candles are present.

By: Holly

Holly — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 17:22:56 +0000

So if the employees don’t comply with the written “restrictions” and management does not enforce it, what do I do next? I’m planning to leave the building without “clocking out”. We clock in and out everyday. Why should I not get paid for work I am capable of doing, but the employer has not provided a safe work environment? What if they fire me for leaving the work space? I’m getting the feeling they want me to quit…but I refuse to abandon myself that way. I also have firbromyalgia and will be seeing the doctor this week with regards to my MCS. HELP!!!

By: Beth

Beth — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:25:16 +0000

I work in a call center that has a “restricted perfume and cologne use” which is why I decided to work there. However, they do not enforce this rule nor do they intend to because it “infringes” on the other employees rights — so I either have to find another job or deal with their very lacking attempts at accommodations. I just wanted to be put in the farthest corner away from all the traffic — but because my doctor did not specify that they refused. LOL headed to doctor now for that accommodation among a few others I have thoughts of. Not asking for anything more than the ability to do the job I have and the job I like to do.

By: HSM

HSM — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 21:20:07 +0000

Our ‘No Scent’ rule is worded no Perfume, and is intended for products that are sold as perfume and includes examples such as lotions with perfume added. While most products we use are scented in some manner, most of these are not ‘invasive’. When that scent fills the area and remains after the person has left, this qualifies as perfumed.

The person affected makes every effort to not cause a hue and cry over every perceived scent, but we as reasonable caring coworkers need not ignore the effects we have control over, either. I believe this is what used to be known as a “happy medium’, with us all doing our best to be reasonable.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 21:03:53 +0000

To HSM:
Not all “obvious scents” are from people wearing cologne.

I am amazed of the “damned if you do” “damned if you don’t” dichotomy in our society. Even on these blogs, there are those who rail about the employees who come to work smelling like human beings without the decency to wear deoderant. Now there are those who want “no scents.”

I find it very difficult to go scentless today. Every soap, shampoo, laundry soap and fabric softener has a “scent.” We got room fresheners and Febreeze sprays. We wear deoderant, cologne, aftershave, perfume, etc. Just about every hand lotion and moisurizer has a scent added. Travelling on the bus or just walking around, you pick up the scents of those around you.

Whats really sad, is that after you have been around the scents for awhile, you don’t even smell them.

So, I can understand how a person who lives in our society might deny having a scent and smell like a fruit stand.

I am curious on how your “no scent rule” is working in your office. Is it truly “no scent” or just “no different scents” that we can detect?

By: Linda

Linda — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:24:24 +0000

I have severe allergic reactions to most perfumes. I’m also a smoker, with no reaction to cigarette smoke. I agree with smoke-free environments because the smoke and smell really bother a lot of people. I never smoke in the presence of anyone I know to be sensative to it, and if I am smoking – even in my own home – and it’s bothering anyone (even if they don’t actually say it but I can see it bothers them), I stop immediately. I really would like the same courtesy with the perfume fumes that make me so desperately ill. My friend, who is even more sensative than I, actually ended up with double pneumonia after a forced exposure during a three hour meeting. This is really serious business. No smoke – no perfume!

By: HSM

HSM — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 23:54:00 +0000

We also have a person here in a smaller open office with a medically diagnosed allergy to purfumes. Her breathing becomes restricted and has broken out with visible hives. She does restrict her personal activities by not attending movies, etc placing herself in areas of risk. She has been affected by perfumed deoderants and hair sprays but does work with us in managing these occurances.
I am constantyly amazed when I must re-enforce the no scent rule at our office, that the persons involved will consider my request to refrain a personal bashing, versus a consideration for an affliction that there is zero simpathy for. These persons will begin with a little something and just raise the bar until it is noticed. I detest being put in the position of nose police when the obvious scent (IE arm’s length range) is present and denied.

By: Joe

Joe — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 21:15:53 +0000

Liberty,
I don’t think you understand the severity of this. Sometimes, you may be right that people just prefer not to smell certain fragrances. However, this is not the case all of the time. This is probably why employers are expected to have reasonable accomodations if a medical necessity is shown.

Its not that people think that their rights trump others, its that society often dictates that your “rights” end where other’s rights begin.

I have a co-worker who is extremely sensitive to fragrances and CAN NOT BREATHE when people have on heavy fragrances or even when an aerosole such as Lysol is sprayed or popcorn is burnt in the microwave. She has a rescue inhaler and even with this, has to leave the worksite to get fresh air and is literally incapacitated for 10-15 minutes until she can catch her breath. I would suspect that someone’s right to breathe may actually be more important than someone’s right to wear a fragrance at the workplace.

The workplace is exactly that, a place to accomplish business. Breathing directly contributes to a worker being able to perform the job whereas wearing perfumes does not normally contribute significantly to a person being able to accomplish the job. An employer permitting the use of perfumes, etc is a benefit, not a right. However I believe most courts would rule that a person may be considered eligible for a reasonable accomodation if they are limited in the major life activity of breathing. If managers and HR would take reasonable steps as dictated by the law, things like this should never make it to court.

By: Janice

Janice — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 20:55:54 +0000

Our HR Manager put out an email only recently, after an employee complained that employees in her area were coming back from lunch and spraying themselves with perfume. The employee affected was moved to a less obtrusive area (now she complains that there’s too much sunlight from the window), and the perfume situation seems to be under control for now. This is a medical practice and we are all advised and reminded that our patients can be sensitive too. Employees who won’t comply have some growing up to do………….It always comes back to that “do unto others” idea.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 20:44:10 +0000

There are two issues at play here.

How do you deal with nuisance issues that causes distention among the ranks and how do you provide a safe workplace.

Everyone could probably make a case about safety relating to most any topic (poor hygeine could lead to more exposure to germs/disease, etc.) but not all instances are proven health and safety issues. In cases where it is known or generally accepted that a health or safety issue is at stake, the employer must act to correct. In areas where there is debate, the employer has to mediate in a fair and equitable manner or discrimination and bias will be alleged and there will be many disgruntled individuals and distractions from the job at hand. Sometimes the loss in productivity and turnover, as well as, responding to EEO and other governmental investigations or lawsuits can exceed any possible governmental fine.