(Updated October 2008)
A federal appeals court affirmed the dismissal of a disability discrimination claim based on perfume sensitivity. It found that the employer reasonably accommodated the employee by taking various measures, including prohibiting perfume in the workplace.
HR Guide to Employment Law: A practical compliance reference manual covering 14 topics, including the Americans with Disabilities Act
Facts
Linda Kaufmann began working for GMAC Mortgage Corporation in Pennsylvania in June 2002. Soon after starting the job, she experienced “severe allergic reactions” to her coworkers’ perfumes. GMAC took various steps to accommodate her, including development and implementation of a “perfume-free environment.”
GMAC also moved Kaufmann’s desk, changed the air filters by her workspace, and provided her with a desktop air filter and fan. Throughout her employment, the company repeatedly disseminated the perfume-free policy to employees and spoke directly with certain employees who Kaufmann alleged violated the policy.
Kaufmann took a leave of absence to address her allergies from September until December 2002. Following her return, her attendance was erratic, and she failed to perform her job. As a result, GMAC fired her in May 2003.
Kaufmann sued GMAC, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Pennsylvania state law based on a failure to accommodate her disability, harassment, and retaliation for exercising her rights under the Act. Although the district court questioned whether an allergy to perfumes and scents constituted a disability under the ADA, it granted GMAC’s request to dismiss the case before trial. Kaufmann appealed.
ADA Compliance: Practical Solutions for HR
Third Circuit’s decision
The Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of Kaufmann’s claims. It didn’t, however, address whether her allergy to perfumes and scents constituted a disability under the ADA. Rather, the court focused on whether GMAC provided a reasonable accommodation. It concluded that the company’s actions to eliminate perfume in the workplace and improve the air quality in Kaufmann’s workspace constituted a reasonable accommodation.
Kaufmann’s demands for additional measures weren’t reasonable. “Kaufmann does not explain how it would be possible to create such a perfectly-sealed environment” like the one she would prefer, explained the Third Circuit. The court also agreed that her retaliation claim failed because, among other things, GMAC fired her for attendance issues.
Bottom line
This case underscores the importance of addressing and accommodating an employee’s health-related concerns, even in situations in which it’s unclear whether the underlying condition is a disability protected by law. Unfortunately, this case fails to address whether an employee’s sensitivity to perfume constitutes a disability under the ADA.
It should be noted that the newly enacted ADA Amendments Act makes it easier for employees to sue if they can make a case that they were “regarded as” disabled. In this case, even if the employee wasn’t actually disabled, she might have had a good argument that the employer considered her to be disabled. If she could have proven that the employer discriminated against her because of the perceived disability, the fact that she wasn’t actually disabled would have been irrelevant. Fortunately, in this case, the court found that no discrimination occurred regardless of whether the employee was disabled (or regarded as disabled).
Audio Conference: Migraines, ADA, and FMLA: Legal and Medical Answers for HR
Nevertheless, because it is rarely clear whether an employee’s alleged medical condition constitutes a disability under the law, it’s advisable for you to carefully consider all employee complaints and requests that involve a health-related concern.
Addressing the issue of scents (good and bad) in the workplace is always a challenging one. For fragrances and perfumes, implementing a workplace policy is an option, but that also creates the need to police abuses of the policy. Changing office locations and providing air filters and fans are other alternatives.
For odors, the issue is more complicated if it involves employees who have an offending odor. In those instances, the employees with the alleged odor may have their own health-related issues that are covered by the ADA or state law. In that circumstance, be careful not to discriminate against one employee while accommodating another.
Ultimately, when dealing with workplace scents, you should address the issues on a case-by-case basis, weigh the options, and implement sensible and effective changes.
I was sorry to hear that the disibilty case was dismissed relating to scents in the workplace.It took years for society to realize that second hand smoke makes you sick and kills. Will it take as long, to make society realize scents may do the same thing? Toxic is toxic. What more do they have to understand? And everyone’s system cannot take the same thing. You may be able to stand the scent of Vanilla, I cannot stand the scent. Didn’t someone realize we were all created differenetly for a reason.It’s like what you eat, doesn’t make me shit, but something else might. I have asthma and the foul odors in the office made me very ill. The manager of my office informed someone that I was not smelling anything. But I didn’t know we were connected at the nasal joints. The odors made me and another asthamtic co-worker very ill, so ill we had to retire.
I’ve been fighting this one for years (basilar migraine and other neurological disorders triggered by fragrances.) I have an accommodation that’s mostly working (three days working at home; two days working in what used to be a closet which is either freezing or steaming, but I can’t open a door to improve air circulation because of the constant cloud of chemical fragrance fumes just outside the door. Yeah, those “accommodated” people have it so easy, right?
I blame, first and foremost, the FDA for having no balls whatsoever. Second, the manufacturers, who are literally KILLING people just to addict benzene huffers to their addictive/destructive chemical soup. Third, the benzene addicts themselves, who think they have a right to stink up my air and put me in a (*&@*%^&*@ emergency room.
How come one woman in Chicago goes home with several hundred thousand bucks in damages, while a whole bunch of us are being called liars/crazy because fragrance poisons are KILLING us?
My GOD, this has to stop. How many more lists of poisonous chemicals do we have to post before the FUCKING FDA WILL DO THEIR JOB?
Oh my god. Give me a BREAK.You NEVER hear men bitching about perfumes or perfume allergies.. it’s ALWAYS the women!! These women are just JEALOUS and need a reason to bitch about everything.. Ppl are ridiculously sensitive, overly sensitive–it’s pathetic. Get OVER it. Women have a right to wear perfume, without having to worry about stupid ppl w/their made up allergies. like I said, ppl just love to find the smallest thing to bitch about. Perfume is a perfect thing for them to blow out of proportion. Women that wear perfume generally look ncice and take care of themselves, and these women that complain about it are always just jealous. Take a freakin Excedrine. But really, I have no sympathy because I highly doubt half of this is legit. The half that IS legit, that’s your problem to deal with. You are the minority, the one person in a room of ppl with allergies to perfume. I’m going to start a case that I have allergies to the material in your ugly sweater… WHAT A JOKE. ONE individual with some BS allergy–over hundreds of women that wear perfume. Why should women have to stop wearing perfume because of these constant debbie downers?? Get over it, figure it out yourself… No matter where you are, you will run into PERFUME AGAIN AND AGAIN!! No one should have to accomodate for your crappy, over active immune system
Here is an interesting Q&A from the Washington Post about a food allergy (peanut butter) incident at work — http://bit.ly/2cK7bM6