City employees with a strong aroma of perfume, cologne or any scented products will soon be in for a warning.
Detroit officials have plans to place placards in three city buildings detailing scented products to avoid due to a settlement in a widely publicized federal lawsuit filed by a city planner in 2008 and settled last month.
The employee, Susan McBride, was awarded $100,000 in the federal case because of her breathing sensitivity to chemical products — but she has yet to receive her money.
— From Detroit city employees discouraged from wearing strong scents at the Detroit News.
50 Comments
Read more about commenting at Now Smell This.
Awarded $100,000???? Ridiculous.
Why? If it made her sick and management did nothing about it, I’d say that’s a low number.
I’m just surprised that it had to go that far. It seems like such a simple fix without having to sue – mediation should have worked. If people were considerate of one another, stupid lawsuits would be unnecessary, and tax payers wouldn’t have to pay through the nose. Guess I’m naive to the insensitivity of others, as well as suspicious of false claims. But that’s the judge’s responsibility – to weed through the falsity and find the truth. Guess we have to trust the courts in the end. But still.
In principle would agree, but can only assume that whomever was in charge did nothing or told her to suck it, otherwise it wouldn’t have gotten this far. The city did try to have her claim dismissed and the judge did not agree:
http://www.nstperfume.com/2008/11/30/think-before-you-spritz-part-2/
Here is the main problem for me:
“The city initially fought it on the grounds that there was no medical diagnosis of her condition and that she is not disabled.”
Does the city have to stop any activity that an employee claims makes them “sick” without any medical back-up?
Yes, but the city did not prove that that was the case:
http://www.websupp.org/data/EDMI/2:07-cv-12794-14-EDMI.pdf
Should clarify — that is from the city’s attempt to have the suit dismissed. But you might also see this, which gives more details as to the response of HR to her complaints:
http://www.jacksonlewis.com/legalupdates/article.cfm?aid=1593
Looks like they did indeed essentially tell her to suck it.
Oh man, I retract. I hadn’t read anything but the first article linked. That is one horrible HR department.
Thanks for all the background info, Robin! Taxpayers should sue oust that HR department!
That’s the problem with these quick news stories…they never tell you everything, and in this particular case, many of the stories seem weighted towards the city’s position. I am a firm believer that offices ought to have procedures that are followed if somebody complains about scent use — otherwise, you end up with what Detroit did, a probably unnecessary policy that prohibits more than you need to.
Heard this on the radio this morning. Apparently the plaintiff’s coworker wore so much perfume that it caused the plaintiff to be unable to fulfill her job duties.
This is why I keep the three-foot sillage rule in force at all times. I don’t want to make someone else miserable – I’ve been bludgeoned enough by Tabu and Opium and Angel, worn in eye-watering quantities.
Because one person was inconsiderate, the employees of the city of Detroit have lost their privileges. Which is, of course, the sensible and preemptive way to address the problem. It’s sad, nonetheless.
Would not say it was because 1 person was inconsiderate, would say it was because the city didn’t do anything about it — or at least, I’m assuming that is true or otherwise the case would not have gone to trial. IIRC, the person was not only using perfume, but also a plug in air freshener — really, no office ought to allow such a thing.
I think I agree with you.
Absolutely! From what the supporting articles said, the offender was using air freshener and potpourri and candles? Did she burn a little Nag Champa, too? No way any of that should be allowed in a workplace – it is giving me a migraine thinking about it.
My husband read about this in the Toronto Sun today and was telling me about it. I had an instant image of some people locking their doors at night and spritzing themselves liberally with perfumes. I can’t say I’m totally against it because it seems the only way to squash the actions of the few people who really can’t think beyond themselves. I guess I wear small amounts now anyway as even my close family members usually don’t smell my scents.
I wear small amounts too, and notice more than I used to how many people seriously overapply — and so many offices these days do not have windows that open. I would not want to work with someone who was spritzing liberally AND using a plug in air freshener, that’s just too much.
Agreed, although… I have to wonder if perhaps *that* person had some sort of issue they were trying to cover up (bad BO, foot odor, something along those lines). That’s it: we should just all be allowed to telecommute.
Yes! Working at home is safest, LOL…
Totally agree!!!!!
Totally agree. I also use small amounts and my closest family members also usually don’t smell my scents.
Okay I know I’m going to be blasted for this, but here goes. I think the “smell sensitivity” issue is a load of you know what. For 2 semesters I had classes in a building at the Univ of MN. There was an employee there who was apparently so sensitive to smells there were signs on the doors that no perfume, cologne, scented shampoo or body products like lotions etc were allowed. EVERYONE, from fellow employees to students entering for one class were forbidden to wear any of the above. But here’s my issue, what did THAT woman do about her problem? I have terrible eyesight, but I don’t expect signs to be 1000 feet high so I can read them. I wear glasses. My dad has poor hearing but he doesn’t expect the sound levels at movies to be booming, he wears a hearing aide. If this woman was soooo sensitive to general smells she couldn’t work, why didn’t she wear a mask? I guess I began to feel that thousands of people don’t need to change their personal habits to satisfy ONE person when I saw them doing nothing themselves to deal with the issue. (But I will say the HR in the story did a poor job of dealing with the problem.)
I won’t blast you! Will only say that in this particular case, the woman did not ask that the office adopt a scent free policy, nor was she so sensitive to general smells that she couldn’t work if anyone in the office was wearing scent.
I have had an experience with the seriously over perfumed…and it’s not pleasant.
And I mean seriously over-perfumed as in “the skin on my face is burning”. It’s not something that can be easily overlooked or ignored, and if it is a problem then HR or the immediate supervisor of the department has a duty to address that problem. That it was not addressed properly is the basis of the lawsuit, not one person’s over or hypersensitivity to her neighboring co-worker’s fragrance choices.
Too there’s the issue of less dramatic and more commonplace scent-caused disruptions. Spending a day staring at a computer while you’re sick to your stomach and fighting off a migraine is not a good way to get your job done.
Maybe the frags geared toward Asian markets could be marketed here for the office crowd. On the one hand, I understand allergies to a degree though mine are seasonal rather than chemical. But again, the whole situation was poorly handled by HR and I don’t think it reasonable everyone should have to suffer on account of it. I take my allergy meds and go about my business and as a “responsible fragrance wearer”, I’d be very disappointed with how this was handled since I put so much work into my collection and being considerate when I wear something.
My SIL had a horror story about her older child’s preschool. Apparently there was a student who was so allergic to peanuts that none of the kids were allowed to eat *anything* peanut related (like the classic peanut butter and jelly sandwich)in case they ended up sitting beside that particular child for lunch and snacks. I didn’t know peanut allergies could be so severe even the smell would do it, and haven’t had as much trouble with my own kids in school. But allergies do seem to be on the rise, oddly enough, and I’d much rather see workplace policy encouraging light frag application and no fragrancing personal workspace (plug-ins etc.) than flat out ruling against it. I mean just being out in day to day life brings my nose into contact with cologne after perfume after cologne, and that’s part of life. They’re also passing a law here in Mich that will finally ban smoking in all public places, and I completely understand that based on the facts concerning second hand smoke. But the frag thing is a bit harder to take and I’m glad I work from home because of situations like this one.
Oh, peanut allergies can be (literally) deadly.
All nuts and ‘concentrated nut products’ are banned from my kids’ school. That’s quite common in schools where I live.
Yet that’s not really a sensible approach, is it? There are many, many substances that may cause anaphylaxis-inducing allergies, yet peanuts get banned? (I find it ironic because I’m severely allergic to almost all nuts *except* peanuts, which aren’t true nuts; they’re legumes.)
Gah. I need to learn how to read: I thought you wrote *peanuts* had been banned. It makes more sense now. Where is my embarrassment smiley when I need it?!
And yet I was invited not to come back for complaining at a laundromat that sent home sheets that smelled of cigarette smoke for me to give to my allergic, asthmatic kid.
(Admittedly, my complaints were very CLEAR. And – eventually – not particularly quiet. The woman who OBVIOUSLY had caused the problem – I ascertained she was the only woman in the business who smoked – refused to accept responsibility.)
What is WRONG with some people?
On the other hand, I now use a much better laundromat.
A laundry with a smoker — that is classic.
Classic and vile! ew!
GAG!
Yeah, I don’t know… I can see both sides but this also is a slippery slope. I’m still not sure I understand the ruling about the disability — it doesn’t seem like it’s proven that she has one (the judge wrote “if she has one”)? And with the information below, who decides whats “mild” and what’s “offensive”? I’m being serious. Maybe it’s the “reasonable person” test that’s often used in harassment suits. Again, one more reason I thank heaven I don’t work in HR.
It does sound like this plaintiff was reasonable and open, but a policy like the one below seems to open the door to the next person saying that one spritz of Infusion d’Iris is “strong and offensive.”
QUOTE: Instead, according to the Judge, in providing her employer with a copy of a policy promulgated by another city department directing that “mild scents may be worn in moderation, but strong or offensive scents that become detrimental to the work unit will not be tolerated,” she “sought to limit the most egregious scents through a written policy and employee education regarding chemical sensitivities,” not a scent-free environment, as the defendant asserted. Moreover, the City did not even address this type of suggested policy.
That ruling was just for the motion to dismiss the case — not from the final trial, so it doesn’t establish whether or not her suit has merit, only says the the city has no basis to prevent the trial.
How thankful I am that I have the good fortune to not work in an office any more. [Especially since I'm most likely one of those 'over-appliers'.]
Ditto — very glad to work at home.
I don’t especially have a problem with the scent-free office as a concept except that fragrance-free body producst can be tricky to find, and sometimes expensive. I like fragrance-free stuff and that is why I use trusty ol’ Clinque for skin care and cosmetics. But I have never found a fragrance-free shampoo.
I don’t think the current rules in Detroit city offices would require all products to be scent-free.
I use a shampoo called “Free and Clear” which is frag, dye and sulfite free. You can usually find it behind the pharm counter. I had a very bad experience with Aveda and had to switch to this because of a major rash on my face and neck. Turned out Aveda hair care products have way too much essential oil and I can’t tolerate it. I don’t have a problem with perfume and will probably just switch to another shampoo now that the issue has cleared up. But “Free and Clear” is highly praised by dermy’s.
Thanks!
Agh. Glad I’m not the only one. I used unscented Dr.Bronner’s on my hair after Aveda’s color care line gave me an extremely nasy scalp rash.
Reminds me, I need a hair cut.
I recently sat next to a man on a trans-Atlantic flight who, after about five minutes, quietly got up and switched seats with his wife, who was sitting in the aisle seat in front of him. I, mortified at the thought that I had offended him somehow, asked his wife if he was okay. She–very nicely–said that he was incredibly sensitive to smells, and that my perfume was setting off some of his allergies.
I felt awful, and genuinely embarrassed. And also totally taken aback, because I’d sprayed a single shot of Diorissimo on my wrist EIGHT hours before, and couldn’t smell a damn thing. I”ve got cranky skin, and use fragrance-free lotion and anti-perspirant, so there wasn’t any layering of scent going on. But still this poor chap was knocked out by it. It must be awful for him. I think most people have preferences about the level of others’ scent application, but it must be brutal to be punched by scent every single time you leave the house.
No trips to India for that fellow, that’s for sure.
Oh, that was nice that he moved without complaining, and I don’t see why you should feel awful at all…it isn’t like you amped up your perfume just before going on board, or worse — and people do this! — sprayed more on mid-flight.
Oh lord! I feel for you (and him!).
Below is a link to a story which states that an earlier similar case resulted in a jury award of over $10 million to a woman complaining of a coworker’s perfume.
http://www.onpointnews.com/NEWS/Scents-Alive-Perfume-Allergy-Case-Settles-for-$100K.html
While it does appear that the HR department in the McBride case dd not take sufficient action to prevent litigation and the previous scent policy was vague, the new policy sets a really high bar. Functional perfumery exists in part because many products have unpleasant chemical odors in and of themselves. Is using potpourri, plugin air freshener, and perfume overkill? Definitely, and the former two have absolutely no place in a work environment (I find the plugins particularly vile) but expecting everyone to use exclusively unscented lotions, detergents, etc., seems excessive.
I don’t think the new policy requires workers to use only unscented products.
I just found out from a new coworker that she was asked not to wear perfume (maybe it was strong perfume) at work, because another coworker has asthma. It’s never been mentioned to me, which with luck means I haven’t overdone things. Work perfume is usually limited to one spritz in any case. I dislike the idea of an anti-smell workplace policy and like the idea of common sense, which alas, might be in short supply…
Exactly: common sense prevents so many problems!
I wonder if there’s any correlation between this bizarre lawsuit and the fact that Detroit frequently stinks of sewer in the morning when one approaches it from the suburbs.
Who knows…