This one smells
May 31, 2005Is an employer required by the ADA to reasonably accomodate an employee who claims a coworker’s perfume makes her sick?
Possibly. Fragrance sensitivity appears to be a recognized form of allergy. Whether it meets the stringent ADA definition of “disability” is certainly open to challenge. If it does, there may be a duty to reasonably accomodate, as with other disabilities.
In a recent case, a jury awarded $10.6 million to a former DJ who alleged her employer discriminated against her after she made such a complaint about a co-worker’s perfume.
The company said it tried to accommodate her by requiring the co-worker to stop wearing perfume and modifying work schedules.
The DJ claimed the station terminated her in retaliation for filing an EEOC charge.
The company said it terminated her because she failed to come to work as scheduled.
If the condition is a disability, and if the employer fails to offer a reasonable accomodation, and if the employee fails to come to work to avoid being sickened, the employee’s failure to come to work as scheduled would not be a valid defense.
HR.BLR.com: DJ Who Complained About Perfume Gets $10.6M
Full story in Detroit Free Press: “DJ takes in sweet smell of victory”
More about fragrance sensitivity.
Related Posts
No protection against retaliatory discharge for malicious bad faith filing of unfounded harassment charge
Neither controlled epilepsy nor perceived emotional instability is ADA disability
Retaliation claim lost by plaintiff due to failure to include it in EEOC charge; highly offensive racial remark kept out at trial
Case emphasizes discrimination charge relationship to lawsuit allegations; also key points for retaliation cases
More on EEOC study of its Mediation Program
No Comments »
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
If you want to leave a feedback to this post or to some other user´s comment, simply fill out the form below.