Judge allows civil suit over co-worker's perfume

DenverPost.com ^ | 11/27/08

[Eric Blair 2084]

In the words of that great poet and philosopher James Buffett:

“If we couldn’t laugh we would all go insane.”

[ru4liberty]

You forgot on little thing. Most companies have “at will” employment clauses. I can and have let people go for these reasons, with no legal recourse on their part. You should read the application you filled out. That clause has to be read and signed before you become employed with the company.

For real? You have let someone go who had a medical problem pertaining to fragrances rather than create a workplace policy of no fragrance?

What would you recommend for people with these kinds of medical problems who want/need to be gainfully employed? Do you have a solution for them? Would you be angry with them if they were unable to find employment because of their health situation and applied for welfare?

[Twink]

” there are a number of people who just want a safe environment in which to work”

“if our personal right to breathe air that doesn’t make us sick”

Hmmm. Safe work environment. Join a Union. I’m sure they will fight for your right to work in a safe environment as long as you pay the Union dues.

Personal right to breathe air that doesn’t make us sick. That’s a new one for me. Didn’t realize we had a personal right to breathe air that doesn’t make us sick.

I have a friend who doesn’t drive, doesn’t and never owned a car, and thinks cars should be banned because they harm the air she breathes. All the exhaust fumes make her sick. It literally, according to her, makes her physically ill. We should ban those next.

Where does it end?

I think we all should be considerate of those around us but where does it end?

[Twink]

“Would you be angry with them if they were unable to find employment because of their health situation and applied for welfare?”

No Conservative would apply for Welfare. No Conservative would think they were unable to find employment because of their health situation. That’s liberal/dem talk.

A workplace policy of no fragrance? You gotta be kidding me. So what happens when the soap or shampoo someone uses causes another to have health issues? I want to know where the damn line is drawn.

I believe there are chemically sensitive people. I don’t know why this happens or the details of such things. I believe there’s a valid issue. Is the rest of the world supposed to accomodate them?

Where’s the damn line?

[Aurorales]

I was being sarcastic.

Sorry it went over your head.

Please read the rest of the post and you might have just understood that.

I won't tell someone to stop drinking coffee and cigarettes. Because I believe if they want to they can.

Now, if I want to wear perfume, then I can.

That was my point.

[Aurorales]

I completely agree.

This is again the slippery slope problem.

I am very sorry that there are people who have a chemical sensitivity. (I mean that)
I am also sorry for anyone who has any health problems.

BUT....

We cannot accommodate everyone and their issues.

Where's the damn line indeed!

[verga]

You forgot on little thing. Most companies have “at will” employment clauses. I can and have let people go for these reasons, with no legal recourse on their part. You should read the application you filled out. That clause has to be read and signed before you become employed with the company.

I have the grave misfortune of haveing to belong to a teachers union, so that does not apply in my case. Also it depends on the state you live and work in, not all of them have that.

In addition whether it is a "right to work" state or not they can still bring a lawsuit. A law suit does not hagve to make sense for it to come to court.

[elkfersupper]

Please read the rest of the post and you might have just understood that.

I read the rest of your post.

If you had added bacon and beer to your "sick to stomach" list, you would have described most of the smells I enjoy the most (I also like diesel fuel - both raw and combusted).