Susan McBride, who works in the planning department for the city of Detroit, is suing the city “alleging her co-worker’s strong perfume has made it impossible for her to do her job. …McBride alleges the city should accommodate her disability by prohibiting people from wearing perfume in the workplace.” As the Detroit News reports, and as we noted at the time, this isn’t the first time Detroit has been the scene of perfume-in-the-workplace litigation:
In 2005, Detroit country music deejay Erin Weber won a $10.6 million jury verdict against her employer, WYCD (99.5 FM) after she alleged she was sickened by a fellow radio host’s perfume.
But U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh reduced the award to $814,000, saying it was not clear from the evidence that Weber had a perfume allergy.
(Paul Egan, “Worker sues over co-worker’s perfume”, Detroit News, Jul. 4; “Employee Sues City Over Co-Worker’s Perfume, Seeks Ban on Scents”, AP/FoxNews.com, Jul. 5).
4 Comments
Ok, if “it was not clear from the evidence that Weber had a perfume allergy” why did she get any money?!
This is a very real condition that this woman has…maybe this lawsuit will bring about change (that today’s chemicals in fragrances are toxic).
“This is a very real condition that this woman has…”
Lisa, I’m curious how you know more about the case than the judge who oversaw it?
If you’re arguing that generally the condition exists, I agree. I also agree that the employer should have instituted a no perfume policy as no one has a right to wear perfume to work, as far as I know. But if there is no evidence she suffered from the condition, I think she should have received nothing. There is no cause of action for being annoyed at work.
[…] Nov. 27, opinion in PDF courtesyBashman, h/t reader Vicky Gannon). We covered the case earlier here, here, and […]