Woman sues employer over pigeon droppings
September 24, 2008 by Fred HosierPosted in: Here comes the judge, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views
Military and civilian employees who have traveled to Iraq have faced all sort of hazards. Patricia Howard wants to add one more to the list: pigeon droppings.
Howard is suing USA Environmental (USA-E) in federal court, alleging its managers exposed her to hazardous pigeon poop.
She took a job for USA-E in January 2004 as an ammunition handler, helping to dispose of 100 tons of explosives per day.
Her lawsuit claims the warehouses where she worked were covered with thousands of pounds of excrement that accumulated in the sites for years. Then, the suit claims, the droppings, dead birds and dry desert heat combined to cover the warehouse floors in filth.
Howard left USA-E and now works in HR for a corrugated container company. Doctors haven’t diagnosed her with any illnesses after returning from Iraq, but she says there’s no way of knowing if she’ll become ill later.
Her lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages.
Tags: Iraq, lawsuit, pigeon droppings
September 26th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Unbelieveable! As a parent of a son who was getting shot at over there, I certainly hope the judge throws this out. I would rather the tax dollars for this law suit be spent on someone more deserving. Was she not aware of the conditions in Iraq before she left? If she felt endangered, perhaps she shouldn’t have taken the job.
September 26th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
This is crap. Just because the work is unpleasant doesn’t mean you can sue over it,
“I might get sick lster.” You could say the same thing over a flickering fluorescent bulb.
September 26th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
ridiculous
September 26th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Careful. The new ADA regs could make ridiculousness a disability!
September 26th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Walk in her shoes, then make an opinion. Would you work in that filth? How did she know what the conditions were before hand?
September 26th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Once had an administrative law judge in an unemployment hearing rule in favor of an ex-employee. The decision stated “It was not against the law to be stupid.” I don’t believe I will ever forget that one!
September 29th, 2008 at 9:37 am
I think the place where this happened is being focused on rather than the circumstances that actually happened. I certainly will make no comparison between a person who has a loved one there actively involved in a “hot” zone and what this woman felt was right or wrong. I feel I must point out as well that her circumstance has to be judged on it’s own merit and not mixed in with the emotions of a war zone. It is her right to litigate. Isn’t that what this war is all about? Protecting the freedoms that we have? Liking it or not liking it is not a reason for her to win this action or to lose it. Let it go through the process and allow the legal process to work.
September 29th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Iraq is not the cleanest country, especially right now since their infrastructure is so fractured. Did she not ask questions in her interview for the job about the conditions over there – living and working? Is she not responsible in part for her decision to take the job knowing that it was in a war-torn, volatile part of the world? Our son was injured over there, not a life threatening injury, but an open wound. The military immediately got him out of the country due to the risk of infection. She needed to take responsibility and do her homework before she accepted the job – or did she accept the job because the money was too good to pass up? I’m sure a
September 29th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Unbelievable
September 30th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Isn’t this what would be called a frivolous lawsuit?
January 30th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Wow. A US Company has a contract with the Government that states it will provide safety equipment at OSHA standard. In a war where Ice Cream, and DVD’s are available for sale- this company with a multi-million dollar contract decides not to buy readily available decontamination suits and respirators for its American workers, who obviously are already taking great risk working with hazardous explosives, so the company can save a buck.
The law suit would result in money being paid back to OUR AMERICAN GOVERNMENT, because the contractor had a contract stating what it would do, and didn’t follow that contract. They decided not to provide safety equipment against diseases that can cause DEATH for these American workers ( Histoplasmosis and more.) And the response to this article is – frivolous? I say, that company should be made accountable for their actions. If we Americans didn’t follow a contract for work that we hired to do, you bet we would pay the price. If we negligently and knowlingtly threatened the lives of people, you can bet we would be convicted of a crime. This does matter.
Coal miners working in dangerous mines- still need and deserve respirators. Why don’t these Americans? In the end, if this company doesn’t pay- our taxes will pay for their employees subsequent medical care. Our taxes will pay for the bail out of companies like AIG. AIG provides the disability coverage for contractors. WAKE UP. The hazard was exposed to- the question now is who pays for future illness- YOU or that COMPANY that went AGAINST REGULATION IN IT”S OWN CONTRACT. The bigger questions are: Why aren’t these companies being held accountable for what their contract says they would do? What makes them above the law, and gives them the right to risk American lives? For the contractors on this mission that did make it home- who cleared explosives to reduce IED materials being used in this war on our soldiers, do they deserve to suffer grave illness in the future? STAND UP FOR AMERICANS, and THEIR RIGHTS, not for FRAUDULANT Contract Companies. I do agree, that this is unbelievable.
February 2nd, 2009 at 8:19 am
Mad Dog
Thanks for being a voice of reason. You said it a lot better than I did. So often people judge others circumstances by the seat of thier pants falling on emotion and an abysmal lack of facts.
February 2nd, 2009 at 8:47 am
John, if all the facts are not given, you can only respond on those that are.
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:53 am
Arguably you may have a point. My point is that in spite of not having all of the facts a slight exercise in reason could lead people to conclude that this person has a RIGHT to seek legal redress for all of the reasons stated by Mad Dog. To castigate this person for that right is . . .well. . . wrong. And to assign her the emotion of a family member that has family in this conflict is unbalanced at best.
I’m not saying that is what you have done but that is what I have read into some of the post. I thought it very unfair to cast her in the light that some have. I am not being argumentive, just my two cents worth.