Ohio Court: Sensitivity to Perfume Gives Rise to ADA Claim

An employee complains that co-workers' perfume use is exacerbating her asthma. She asks that a policy be enacted to restrict perfume usage in the office, or alternatively, to permit her to work from home. What do you do? 

Recently, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio — Western Division addressed this very issue in Core v. Champaign County Board of County Commissioners.  There, the Court held that an employee properly asserted a claim against her employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) based on an alleged sensitivity to perfume.  The employee alleged that she suffered from asthma and had a severe chemical sensitivity to certain perfumes and other scented products. As a result of the alleged sensitivity, the employee requested that the employer implement a fragrance-free workplace policy. When this request was not granted, the employee asked to be allowed to work from home as an accommodation, which the employer rejected via correspondence from its attorney.

The employee filed suit, and the employer challenged the claims, arguing that it would be impossible to accommodate the employee’s alleged disability because it would be impossible to completely limit the employee’s exposure to perfumes in the workplace as the workplace provided access to members of the public. The Court however, found that the purpose of the proposed accommodation was to minimize and limit employee’s potential exposure to perfumes that triggered her severe asthma and not completely eliminate any possibility that perfume would be worn into the workplace by members of the public. The Court found that the employee’s request for a fragrance-free workplace was reasonable on the face of the pleadings.

Finally, the Court noted that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed with the general proposition that an employer is not required to allow disabled workers to work at home. However, the Court also noted that it recognized the possibility of exceptions to the general rule in the unusual case where an employee can effectively perform all work-related duties at home. The Court also found that due to advances in communication technology, it would not take a very extraordinary case for the employee to create a triable issue of the employer’s failure to allow the employee to work at home; nevertheless, the Court noted that the ultimate determination of reasonableness is a fact-specific inquiry and a question for the fact-finder. In sum, the Court concluded that the employee sufficiently plead a plausible claim for relief.

This case highlights the importance of engaging in the interactive process to determine whether and/or how to accommodate employees, and the potential exposure and liability for failure to do so.