Thursday, July 5, 2007

A Detroit city employee has filed suit against the city because of her co-workers perfume (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288130,00.html). She is using the Americans with Disabilities Act as the basis for her suit. Already, her co-worker has had to stop using an air freshener which makes me wonder if the real victim of the case is the co-worker who has had to deal with the plaintiff's B.O.

I digress. What constitutes a disability? I hate people chewing with their mouth open and cracking gum, in fact it makes me sick to my stomache. Does this mean I can sue any business that I enter if they do not make people chew politely? Or, can I just have disability benefits?
Detroit already has enough problems with all the lawsuits against the city busses and their inability for fire problem drivers due to union lawsuits.

How do we fix the slippery slope that has become the American with Disabilies Act? The Sweeds have a solution. They focus on not what you can't due but rather on what you can. If you can't do your job because of perfume, go find a job you can.

1 comment:

Kia said...

You suggest: "If you can't do your job because of perfume, go find a job you can."

How about this one: "If you can't walk up the stairs to get into your office, find a new office that is wheelchair accessible"?

These are people who are trying to be productive citizens, trying to advance their careers through hard work and loyalty to a company. The least to be returned would be an office policy that is mildly sensitive to their disabilities. Just because it is something you and I have trouble relating to does not make it illegitimate.

There are people out there who are legitimately harmed by toxins from perfumes and other airborne toxins/odors. It causes respiratory problems, severe migraines, and other serious health issues. This article covering the lawsuit has some really insightful comments in the comment thread and would serve to balance out your biased assessment.