Posted on 07/05/2007 8:55:27 AM PDT by COUNTrecount
WASHINGTON (AFP) - An office worker for the US city of Detroit is suing for her colleagues to be banned from wearing perfume which gives her such severe headaches, nausea and coughing fits that she must leave work.
Court documents showed Thursday that Susan McBride suffered so acutely from allergy to the chemicals in scents, lotions and sprays that she had to go home sick when a heavily perfumed co-worker shared her office at the city's historic districts department.
Her sensitivity is such that she avoids the detergent sections in shops and cannot sit near perfumed people in a movie theater or on the bus.
The co-worker refused to leave off the perfume, according to the complaint filed at the district court in Detroit, in the northern state of Michigan. McBride needed medical treatment and was off work for some time.
Now she is seeking a jury trial to make the city force fellow employees to come to work un-scented, citing disability discrimination laws. She is claiming unspecified damages for "pain, suffering, humiliation and outrage" suffered.
McBride and her manager have already asked the city authorities that employ her to enforce a "no scent policy as an accommodation to her disability, without success," the complaint said.
I had jury duty on Monday and there was a man there who had eaten something really powerful for breakfast. His smell gagged me. I kept trying to get away from him but he kept showing up close enough for me to smell him. He was wearing a turban, do you think that is what I was smelling?
The govt should pummel her co-workers until they change to accomodate one person. The employer should change the whole business model to accomodate one employee. The co-workers should all change in order to accommodate her.
If she don't like her job, LET HER GET A NEW ONE! Why should however many people or the company change in order to accommodate her???
The responses in this thread remind me of the lib stance on 'universal healthcare'. 37 million people without insurance! Of course, it's never 263 million people WITH health insurance.
Same thing with this thread. 1 person with an allergy! Never 25 people WITHOUT an allergy.
Sheesh
Susan... Susan...
Be careful what you wish for. The cure could be tons worse than the affliction.
Just saying.
You forgot the beached whales. It's glandular, you know.
Under the mandates of the ADA, all doors in the United States must be widened 12 inches...
Just saying.
Careful what you wish for; wear a personal rebreather.
People who truly believe that an individual's "problem", real or imagined, should control the lives of everyone else should be ashamed of themselves.
Opinions. Differences.
Happened in Bloomingdale's----a shopper was sprayed by an employee hawking perfume. Shopper had to be rushed to the hospital. Musta been horrendous----expensive perfumes usually have "fixatives" to make the scent last.
Another horrendous peanut allegy story: a woman in a RI restaurant ate chili. She was highly allergic to peanuts and began to have symptons that she overlooked since in her mind she had not consumed peanuts.
However, she did not know the eatery used peanut butter in its chili (as a thickener). It cost her her life.
Amen!
I'm not suggesting anything of the sort, but some accomodations have to be made in society, especially to assist those that are afflicted.
The wearing of perfume is an arbitrary choice, it's not a necessity, and if your co-worker is rendered physically ill by your wearing it to work it's reasonable that you stop wearing it.
If you were suffering from emphysema and carried an oxygen tank around and, I as you co-worker, came in every day and blew cigarette smoke all around and stank up the office don't you think you would get ticked?
And a smoker could claim a better argument than the perfume wearer, smoking is an addition, perfume wearing is not.
The wearing of perfume is an arbitrary choice, it's not a necessity, and if your co-worker is rendered physically ill by your wearing it to work it's reasonable that you stop wearing it.
Not if my anxiety about smelling bad makes me sick. Often it's merely a question of "My neurosis trumps your neurosis."
Or, alternatively, it's reasonable for you to find another job where you're not exposed to your fixation. It's a matter of perspective.
If you were suffering from emphysema and carried an oxygen tank around and, I as you co-worker, came in every day and blew cigarette smoke all around and stank up the office don't you think you would get ticked?
I never acknowledge silly hypotheticals. That's posturing, not argument.
And a smoker could claim a better argument than the perfume wearer, smoking is an addition, perfume wearing is not.
Again, that varies among individuals. It could be a physical as well as a psychological addiction. Your mileage may vary.
Coercion by the state, who employs armed goons who "just follow orders", is the problem.
I thought the door mandate was so politicians’ heads could squeeze through.
Several years ago I waltzed into a state office and noticed a sign on a door leading to a cubicle farm that stated “scent free zone”.
So what about looks? Maybe I would find you so repulsive looking that I would become ill. Should you be forced to wear a large bag covering you from head to foot? After all, personal rights stop at my eye sight distance.
The fact that someone sues, is the abomination.
Wouldn’t be the first time...
CA....
Ping
My old roommate gets bad migraines. Strong odors, such as perfume, the detergent aisle and candles will trigger the attacks. She does ask her co-workers and clients to not wear perfumes when they meet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.