multiple chemical sensitive

[JUSTICE531]

What is the name of your state? nevada

i am multiple chemical sensitive. i've worked at the same job for 5 years. up to about a year ago, no one was allowed to wear fragrances of any kind into the office. now you can just about do what you want. i suffer from severe migraines caused by fragrances. i have asked, begged, and pleaded for her to post a memo again, which she said she would, but that was only for me not to say anything to her for the moment. i have given them all kind of information on the situation, for them to understand what it is i go through. i've become very ill, and have to leave work. in all this time i have only called in sick once. i do my job and every thing that is asked of me. what am i suppose to do, looking for another job right now is not good. she now feels she does not have to accomadate me. help

 

[cbg]

She is wrong. Multiple chemical sensitivity can be considered a disability under the ADA, and a no-fragrance policy can certainly be considered a reasonable accomodation. You may need to put it to her in precisely those terms; you are requesting an accomodation under the ADA. She will then be required to do an investigation to determine if you qualify under the ADA, and if there is a reasonable accomodation that can be provided.

Be aware that under the ADA, assuming that you qualify, she does NOT have to give you the accomodation you request; she only has to give you one that works. So if she suggests trying first an air filter, a fan, or some other option, you may have to give it a try first. You also may have to get your doctor involved - if you play the ADA card (and I don't see any reason why you shouldn't ) she is entitled to receive medical confirmation of your claim.

If no other option but a fragrance free setting will work and she ultimately refuses to provide that, you may have to file a complaint with the EEOC. However, you're still a way from that yet - the ADA is a step by step process and there are a lot of steps to try first.

 

[JUSTICE531]

thank you so much.

i have tried a fan, and a air purification system. which does not work. i now work in my office with the door shut, but the minute someone walks in with perfume on, i turn the fan on high and have to leave the room until it airs out. thanks again, there may be hope

 

[cbg]

Just for the record:

While I am not saying that you do not or will not qualify, so that you're singing from the right page in the songbook you need to understand that simply having a potentially covered condition does NOT mean that you are automatically covered under the ADA. The ONLY condition that is granted automatic coverage is HIV/AIDS. ALL other conditions have to be looked at on a case by case basis.

From your description, it is my opinion that you should be covered and that instituting a fragrance-free workplace is a reasonable accomodation that will not cause anyone any undue hardship. However, it will be your employer's decision.

IF your employer for some unimaginable reason decides that you are NOT covered under the ADA, THAT will be when you talk to the EEOC.

I can be very sympathetic to your issue because while I do not have MCS, I am extremely allergic to several perfumes and a number of household products, including 85% of the soaps that are manufactured in the US. So I can understand, as perhaps your employer cannot, just how debilitating this can be.

 

[JUSTICE531]

thanks again.

i contacted the eeoc nevada, i was told they can't help, and there is nothing i can do for this problem. no need to file a claim. thanks again.

 

[cbg]

Your state has a very limited definition of disability. If you go this route, you want to go through the Federal EEOC, not the state.

But you are not at the point where you can do this, yet. You need to request the accomodation under the ADA, using that term. Then you need to allow her to determine if you qualify, and as I explained, you may not. If you still are unable to tolerate it, THEN you can complain to the EEOC. But you MUST give them a chance to work with you first, AFTER you pull the ADA card out of the stack.

Good luck and keep me posted.

 

[JUSTICE531]

thanks, i will

 

[JUSTICE531]

i gave the letter to (2) of the (4) owners, which they were fine with my request, and said they would work with me. one of which said that the third owner will probably fire me, but it all depends on the type of day she's having. they just couldn't believe that my problem was that serious, after five years and 1000 migraines i think they finally got it. we'll see. thank you so much for your help. i'll see if i have a job after friday.

 

[cbg]

Did you say the words, Accomodation under the ADA?

If you did, then if you do not have a job after Friday go directly to the EEOC, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Even if it should prove that you are NOT covered under the ADA, once you say those words they are obligated under the law to determine if you have a disability under the ADA AND if there is a reasonable accomodation that they can offer you. Believe it or not, they are not necessarily required to determine if you are disabled under the statute first. I absolutely cannot believe that enforcing a fragrance free policy places a hardship on the company, particularly as they did so at first. No one has a constitutional right to wear perfume.

If you did not say the words, Accomodation under the ADA, DO SO. It is your responsibility to make certain they know you believe you have a disability under the statute. They cannot assume it. A letter from a doctor does NOT constitute asking for a reasonable accomodation under the law unless you make it absolutely clear that you are. HR professionals and managers are trained NOT to assume someone needs an accomodation unless it is asked for.

Good luck.

 

[JUSTICE531]

short version,

an employer has a mandatory obligation under the american with disabilities act to engage in a process with the employee to work out a reasonable accommodation to meet the employee's needs on an interactive basis both by (1) the employee's request to the employer for some accommodation based on disability, or (2) when the employer itself recognizes the employee's need for accommodation.
so for now they will accommodate me, as long as i stay low-key, they are afraid of me becoming a problem, or creating a problem for them (now), but they will not post any notices "fragrances free" in fear of infringing on other rights, outsiders coming into the offices, (can you believe that) i'll see what happens from here.
oh, i am HR, payroll, and benefits
you have been a great help, and i thank you.

 

[cbg]

If it gets to be a problem, point out to them that nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights does anyone have an inalienable right to wear perfume.

 

[enjay]

Can the employers really require that visitors to the office not wear perfumes, deodorants, etc? It's one thing to ask that employees refrain (which personally I find intrusive) but another thing altogether to ask that of people not on the payroll.

 

[cbg]

Certainly they can. They should do it politely, and they certainly should explain the reason behind it (although not necessarily pointing out which employee has the problem) but this is a health issue. And while you may find it intrusive, which is more important; your right to wear scent, or the poster's right to breathe? It's not like they're making the decision arbitrarily.

 

[enjay]

I'm not arguing that the employer doesn't have the right to require that their employees not wear scents (or bathe with the soap they prefer). I don't know, though, how you could possibly tell the UPS guy, the mail man, or someone in for a meeting that they must not wear fragrance. How could that be enforced without costing the company a great deal of business from people who don't wish to abide by those rules?

 

[cbg]

Unless the poster is the receptionist, it's unlikely that there would be an issue with the mailman, UPS man etc. But in terms of visitors to the office, there would be nothing wrong with saying at the time the appointment was made, "We have an employee with MCS and as a result we have implemented a fragrance-free office. We would appreciate it if you would not wear perfume or other scents when you visit us".

Don't you think the majority of people would be responsive to that?

I didn't say that they could legally keep people out who didn't comply (although they could - wouldn't be good business though)but there is absolutely nothing wrong with making the request.

You seem to be taking the position that the majority of people would cease doing business with a company that made such a request, and while I agree that there are probably a few that would out of sheer perversity, I do not agree that it would be the majority response.