Basenotes › Basenotes Forums › Fragrance Discussion › Male Fragrance Discussion › MFD Archive › Detroit = fragrance free in the workplace
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Detroit = fragrance free in the workplace

post #1 of 86
Thread Starter 
Apparently due to a lawsuit, the city of Detroit has passed a resolution forbidding the use of fragrances in the workplace:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35871907...s-us_business/
post #2 of 86
Another reason to avoid Detroit.

"The Detroit News reports the move stems from a $100,000 settlement in a federal lawsuit filed in 2008 by a city employee who said a colleague's perfume made it challenging for her to do her job."

One must use the courts to solve this problem?
post #3 of 86
From everything I've heard about Detroit, fragrance is the least of its troubles.

That being said, similar attitudes prevail throughout Canada, and I would not be surprised to see bans of this nature popping up everywhere the next few years.
post #4 of 86
Does this mean nobody is allowed to use soap? That could be interesting...
post #5 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by sean-dt View Post

Does this mean nobody is allowed to use soap? That could be interesting...

Honestly, if it wouldn't disgust people I like as well as the fragrance-banners, I'd almost want to take revenge by ceasing to wash for weeks on end, citing potential "fragrance contamination" as a cause.

(
post #6 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galamb_Borong View Post

From everything I've heard about Detroit, fragrance is the least of its troubles.

That being said, similar attitudes prevail throughout Canada, and I would not be surprised to see bans of this nature popping up everywhere the next few years.

When I read this I mistakenly read "bans of nature popping up everywhere" which in a strange way didn't read out of context. For instance I find it very hard to keep my concentration when I walk the streets of Athens during this time of the year because bitter orange trees are in bloom and their scent really puts me in a very strange state of mind. I 've never considered filing a law suit against the City of Athens for this. Maybe Detroit is a city very far removed from nature, I don't know, and they don't have to face such a problem. It is really sad though when people start to really believe that life is meant to be an annoyance free space where someone wakes up, goes to work, drives back and then dies of old age and boredom.
post #7 of 86
Only in America ...
post #8 of 86
Now tell me who here wouldn't like to bitchslap the trollup that filed the complaint??!
Seriously!!!
post #9 of 86
Being an hour north of Detroit, I definitely heard this story. It's not too uncommon to have something written about "smelling offensive" in most employee manuals around here. Offensive is taken as smelling like a rotten piece of dung to 16 spritzes of Britney Spears Fantasy. Both will make you ill.

The problem is that this issue shouldnt have gone to the point of court use. It's something that should be handled on a person by person basis with discretion of our employers.
post #10 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kerosene View Post

The problem is that this issue shouldn't have gone to the point of court use.

I agree. A frivolous lawsuit, IMO. This employee actually blames another's perfume for her own questionable work ethics? And the court actually agreed with her?? In some other countries this is the sort of case that gets thrown out immediately, with the 'plaintiff' getting a firm reprimand from the court for wasting tax dollars and court officials' time.

Oh well, the Detroit court will soon stink to high heaven come summer. Let's see how they like it then... LOL.
post #11 of 86
I've been waiting for something like this to happen on this scale ever since the mid 90s, when a woman who used to frequent the multiplex cinema where I worked received a life-long ban because of her continuous refusal to stop wearing perfume despite several warnings. Admittedly she did wear WAY too much and you could tell what screen she'd been sat in for hours after she left, but from small acorns...
post #12 of 86
So, the question is... Where does it end? Seriously - consider a store, a restaurant, whatever... It's banned. Employees can't wear it. In walks a CUSTOMER, wearing something... hmmm.... Interesting. And heaven forbid, does this mean the end of fragrance altogether?! Have they opened up some weird time-continium conundrum whereas, working at a Chanel Boutique, you cannot spray your offerings? Gasp! I guess on the bright side, I wouldn't have to worry about walking through Macy's and having some SA rush me with a bottle of Usher.
post #13 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Grand Duc View Post

Only in America ...

Took the words right out of my mouth. I think us Americans can complain and make a big deal out of ANYTHING!
post #14 of 86
All the catastrophic economic problems that city has and they still have time for this nonsense? Unreal.
post #15 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by noggs View Post

All the catastrophic economic problems that city has and they still have time for this nonsense? Unreal.

Yeah. Talk about misplaced priorities. It is probably why the city is in deep sh!t in the first place...
post #16 of 86
Look at the bright side,
at least no one will be smelling A*Men in the work place
post #17 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kerosene View Post

Offensive is taken as smelling like a rotten piece of dung to 16 spritzes of Britney Spears Fantasy.

Or Mitsouko ... . Overused fragrance is an environmental pollution. Once here a poll was examined on how many spritzes BN users are used to use. The counts were terrific. The median went out to be around 6, isn't it? Max was that 16 or above, honest!

If a reasonable limitation doesn't work on a person by person basis, alas, the court has to decide on what is considered to be acceptable. Think of a situation in which a boss 'wears' his signature, while his 'coworkers' aren't allowed to flee or at least to complain causing risk of unemployment - in Detroit!
post #18 of 86
You've gotta be kidding me! I bet the judge was a grouchy guy who thinks his masculanity level takes a severe hit when subjected to anything remotely resembling a perfume.
post #19 of 86
Lucky i'm not in Detroit
post #20 of 86
Rulings like these upset me very much. It angers me as well. Do they every enforce noise laws ? Why does it have to be JUST fragrance ? Sure, one bad court incident. But there are alot of things that can upset people. A t-shirt with a "rude" slogan. A truck pumping out high base music ? A pre-pubescent kid wearing sickly sexualized clothing ? There doesn't seem to be any headway to ban those things.

And to win a $100 000 lawsuit ?! Unreal....I wish the courts would just GET REAL !
post #21 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surfacing View Post

And to win a $100 000 lawsuit ?! Unreal....I wish the courts would just GET REAL !

Indeed. We are shocked that Americans file these frivolous lawsuits, but I feel that it's really the courts' fault. When these kinds of things aren't summarily laughed out of court (and the plaintiff is actually rewarded!!), of course people will continue filing. Who doesn't want $100,000? The courts are offering an easy way to get it.
post #22 of 86
I knew Axe body sprays would cause this some day!
post #23 of 86
I'd agree with Dimitri about slapping that woman who filed the lawsuit, but I also blame the narcissistic people who walk around in a huge cloud of sillage-- both types are gonna ruin it for the rest of us.
post #24 of 86
Another bright side
the customers walking into the work place will stand out even more
(I am visiting Detroit very soon for my sisters wedding, preparing fragrance arsenal as we speak!)
post #25 of 86
I bet that person was wearing Joop! to get sued for it.
post #26 of 86
Since Detroit is already job free in the workplace, the judge in this case should be commended for the creation of a new job market: Detroit Fragrance Sniffer, Special Workplace Division.
post #27 of 86
They need to worry about being people free there soon, if they don't get their act together !
post #28 of 86
Once again, another example of the majority being ruled by the pathetic neuroses of the minority.

What the hell is happening to the world.

It makes me puke the whole thing. Religious sensitivities are all over the courts like a plague, offending someone's belief system is almost a capital offence and now someone being offended by someone wearing fragrance?

What about the greater offence of the stinking, putrid, fetid armpits of the great unwashed?

London Underground is unpleasant enough at the best of time but in the summer, dear God, even I would rather smell A*Men than some of the putrescent, noxious body odours by some people.

I hope the woman suffocates in a cloud of Farenheit (let's face it, that's not hard to do with even a moderate application).
post #29 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer350 View Post

Took the words right out of my mouth. I think us Americans can complain and make a big deal out of ANYTHING!

Amen to that, I've long felt that our society doesn't feel happy unless it's angry. Everything offends someone. On a serious note, every employee manual I've had at various jobs over the last few years have all mentioned fragrance use in one way or another. Usually it pertained to making sure any personal scent was worn discreetly. But then again, I've only worked in the service industry and not in a traditional office setting yet, so it would make sense.
post #30 of 86
Note to Self "Avoid Detroit!!"
post #31 of 86
This isn't just in America, though - I work for a local authority in the UK and the number of people who try to sue or make a claim against us for, what is basically, their own clumsiness or inability to detect certain possible (and obvious) dangers without a bright neon sign flashing in front of their eyes, is quite staggering and increases year on year. True, in the States it is probably scaled up significantly, but I don't think it can easily be brushed aside by saying a stereotypical "those yanks, eh?!?!?" Cos, in my experience, some of us limeys can be just as bad!
post #32 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuigi View Post

Apparently due to a lawsuit, the city of Detroit has passed a resolution forbidding the use of fragrances in the workplace:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35871907...s-us_business/

I took my time to study the link! So the employees of the CITY are URGED - by the city authorities - "to avoid wearing scented products, including ... colognes, aftershave lotions, perfumes, deodorants, body/face lotions ... (and) the use of scented candles, perfume samples from magazines, spray or solid air fresheners."

Well done, nothing to complain about. You yanks make a big deal from quite something, eh? The decision to pay a settlement of only 100Tsd for a coworker that has been bothered by an other by fragrance isn't that screwed as it seems at first. Think of that 16 spritzes of KOURIOS or TERROR DE GUERLAIN that some BNoters apply before riding the bus! May be the said mate was one of those.
post #33 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamondflame View Post

I agree. A frivolous lawsuit, IMO. This employee actually blames another's perfume for her own questionable work ethics? And the court actually agreed with her?? In some other countries this is the sort of case that gets thrown out immediately, with the 'plaintiff' getting a firm reprimand from the court for wasting tax dollars and court officials' time.

Oh well, the Detroit court will soon stink to high heaven come summer. Let's see how they like it then... LOL.

In truth, anyone can sue anyone for anything...this is just frivolous beyond imaging.

I *do* know that Poison was banned in some places in Paris when it launched in the 1980s...

Quote:
Originally Posted by great_badir View Post

This isn't just in America, though - I work for a local authority in the UK and the number of people who try to sue or make a claim against us for, what is basically, their own clumsiness or inability to detect certain possible (and obvious) dangers without a bright neon sign flashing in front of their eyes, is quite staggering and increases year on year. True, in the States it is probably scaled up significantly, but I don't think it can easily be brushed aside by saying a stereotypical "those yanks, eh?!?!?" Cos, in my experience, some of us limeys can be just as bad!

I am thinking of the "hot coffee" lawsuit when a patron spilled a cup of hot coffee on himself and sued the restaurant.

Just FYI, there is a cautionary warning at the bottom of Tokyo Milk fragrances on the glass bottle, urging use of common sense. Glass bottles are dangerous! I can see it now...a crazed perfume fiend brandishing the stopper of his Chanel perfume!

I used Estee Silver some years ago and a co-worker did not take it well. She simply told me of this and I stopped wearing that scent around her. Other perfumes did not bother her. Can you smell (no pun intended) a lawyer and woman out for a handsome settlement?

This is really silly. Some people cannot eat peanuts. Shall we ban peanuts from the country?

Here is a link of one responder saying perfumes should not be sold at all--perfume wearers are becoming the new cigarette smokers:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288255,00.html
post #34 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Primrose View Post

In truth, anyone can sue anyone for anything...this is just frivolous beyond imaging...........perfume wearers are becoming the new cigarette smokers.....

I believe that each and every workplace is entitled to their own rules of conduct, dress, etc. I'm lucky to work in the fashion industry where one is practically encouraged to wear fragrance and support the industry.
That said, I'm thrilled with the cigarette smoking ban, as it has been proven that second hand smoke is dangerous to others. Until aroma chemicals are proven dangerous to people's health, I can't see how laws banning perfumes can legally stick. If laws like this one pass in other cities/states all the laundry products would have to be removed from the supermarket shelves - and we know P&G will never allow that to happen.
post #35 of 86
oh, detroit definitely has a fragrance. no law can change that.
post #36 of 86
Remember... the source is FOX(notevencloseto)NEWS... That's all I am saying.

(and to the original... I couldn't find the story, but if the language says "urged" that really isn't enforceable it's just a legal Cover Your A**)
post #37 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruggles View Post

I can't see how laws banning perfumes can legally stick. If laws like this one pass in other cities/states all the laundry products would have to be removed from the supermarket shelves - and we know P&G will never allow that to happen.

There is actually no law! May be I did get it wrong. My dictionary concludes, that the city of Detroit urged THEIR employees to avoid fragrance in office. I read it not as a law but a rule of conduct that is explicitly instantiated by the city authorities for their, the cities employees. Employees are asked to comply to this rule, these employees are URGED to avoid, but fragrance is not prohibited.

This rule of conduct has NOT been spoken by the court. It even might have been instantiated before - by the city authorities!
post #38 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Grand Duc View Post

Only in America ...

Actually, with IFRA restricting so many fragrance materials due to allergies, I don't think it's necessarily an American phenomenon. I think people are getting very touchy about all types of things these days. I'm just happy to be self employed.

It's another reason I get rather annoyed when I read posts by people boasting that they use 6 to 10 sprays of Kouros. That kind of unruly fragrance abuse makes it much easier for fragrance to be banned completely.
post #39 of 86
So I want to know... What do I do with co-workers with bad breath? Not that I have any co-workers, currently... lol.
post #40 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclmind View Post

Actually, with IFRA restricting so many fragrance materials due to allergies, I don't think it's necessarily an American phenomenon. I think people are getting very touchy about all types of things these days. I'm just happy to be self employed.

It's another reason I get rather annoyed when I read posts by people boasting that they use 6 to 10 sprays of Kouros. That kind of unruly fragrance abuse makes it much easier for fragrance to be banned completely.

Yes. It is a world that sometimes seems like "high school"... in that one "misbehaving" person can quite possibly ruin things for the rest.
post #41 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiveJazz View Post

... of course people will continue filing. Who doesn't want $100,000? The courts are offering an easy way to get it.

Agreed 100%

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruggles View Post

.... Detroit Fragrance Sniffer, Special Workplace Division.

Hey, this could be a new Law & Order spinoff !

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclmind View Post

...

It's another reason I get rather annoyed when I read posts by people boasting that they use 6 to 10 sprays of Kouros. That kind of unruly fragrance abuse makes it much easier for fragrance to be banned completely.

Agreed as well. Sometimes I wish fragrance bottles came with instructions.
post #42 of 86
I suggest Bond No. 9 release "Detroit", a special edition bottle with nothing inside.
post #43 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by galamb_borong View Post

i suggest bond no. 9 release "detroit", a special edition bottle with nothing inside.

hahahahahaha!!!
post #44 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galamb_Borong View Post

I suggest Bond No. 9 release "Detroit", a special edition bottle with nothing inside.

Very clever, Galamb! No colour, no scent, totally safe...
post #45 of 86
I guess you can't complain when you can buy a house for $10,000
post #46 of 86
And people wonder why Detroit is in the shape that It's in. I think they have bigger fish to fry! ( Dumb Ass's )
post #47 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galamb_Borong View Post

I suggest Bond No. 9 release "Detroit", a special edition bottle with nothing inside.

LOL, I love it. I wouldn't put it past that house either!
post #48 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by merry.waters View Post

There is actually no law! May be I did get it wrong. My dictionary concludes, that the city of Detroit urged THEIR employees to avoid fragrance in office. I read it not as a law but a rule of conduct that is explicitly instantiated by the city authorities for their, the cities employees. Employees are asked to comply to this rule, these employees are URGED to avoid, but fragrance is not prohibited.

This rule of conduct has NOT been spoken by the court. It even might have been instantiated before - by the city authorities!

This relates only to city employees, true. However, I do not think that this should be interpreted as a suggestion rather than prohibition. The specific wording is:

Our goal is to be sensitive to employees with perfume and chemical sensitivities. In order to accommodate employees who are medically sensitive to the chemicals in scented products the City of Detroit requests that you refrain from wearing scented products, including but not limited to colognes, after-shave lotions, perfumes, deodorants, body/face lotions, hair sprays or similar products, the City of Detroit also asks you to refrain from the use of scented candles, perfume samples from magazines, spray or solid air fresheners, room deodorizers, plug-in wall air fresheners, cleaning compounds or similar products. Our employees with medical chemical sensitivities thank you for your cooperation.

Variations of this text are to be posted in several buildings, in lobbies, sent to directors of all city departments, sent as notifications to all city employees, sent as a city wide email notifying employees to contact HR regarding complaints regarding compliance with the policy, printed in their New Employee Manual, and included in a new HR training section regarding chemical sensitivities.

The "urged" language does not appear in the official settlement, which can be read in its entirety here:
http://www.onpointnews.com/docs/mcbride_settlement.pdf

Additionally, I read through the original court opinion regarding the lawsuit. (I was hoping they would name the perfume in question, but they didn't.) However, I thought it was interesting that in the original lawsuit, Susan McBride claimed that in addition to impairments in breathing, she is unable to have children because of her chemical sensitivities. She claimed that a medication she was taking to deal with the symptoms of her sensitivity contraindicated the fertility treatments she was having. Apparently, she can't have a baby because of her co-worker's perfume.

That part got dismissed (thankfully): For the reasons set forth above, the Court concludes that Plaintiff may proceed with her claim of disability based on the major life activity of breathing, but Plaintiffs claim of disability based on detergent shopping, speaking, interacting with others and reproduction are dismissed.

The full 14-page opinion can be read here:
http://howappealing.law.com/McBrideVsDetroitOpinion.pdf
post #49 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamondflame View Post

Yeah. Talk about misplaced priorities. It is probably why the city is in deep sh!t in the first place...

I lived in East Detroit and thank god I moved to the metro Detroit area in Birmingham. Detroit is absolutely horrible. It's huge, practically abandoned at night, insane insurance prices, you need a license to work in restaurants and bars and the city is overrun with car theft and crime. I'm at my dad's house which is about 1 mile from Detroit and as soon as I pass 8 mile I can turn down a side street and about 50% of the houses will be burned and/or abandoned.

Not to mention the economy here is based solely around the "Big 3" and we all know the saying about putting all your eggs in one basket. I cannot wait ti move out of this horrible state as soon as I finish college.

Back on topic, the lawsuit was completely unnecessary and should have been handled by the employer or supervisor. Nowadays anything and everything seems to be going to court and the most ridiculous cases seem to be winning. America is turning into something far too bureaucratic for my tastes.
post #50 of 86
Kouros strikes again.
post #51 of 86
Ridiculous. This woman would die from the sheer preponderance of scent around her if she were really THAT sensitive. (some lawyer definitely saw the $$$ with her case and knew the CoD was somewhat... "under-represented." I'd say, anyway.

I agree with LoneWolf that this should have been handled by the supervisor/employer/HR.

That said... it's not the bureaucracy here in the US which is crazy, it's the litigation-mad (I lump into that the lawyers and the citizens who feel they might be able to get "something for nothing")
post #52 of 86
This gives me another reason never to visit or live in this city.....They have many problems and perfume in the workplace is not even in the top 100 list of things that need to be fixed.....So much for freedom.
Gary
post #53 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by actiasluna View Post

Remember... the source is FOX(notevencloseto)NEWS... That's all I am saying.


As opposed to ABC CBS NBC PBS CNN (make up the news to fit the agenda)NEWS. That's all I'm saying.

Sadly the fiasco in Detroit is a sign of the times throughout the world. I can envision a world down the road where

fragrance wearers will become the next target of the "know best for everyone control masters."

However we as fragrance wearers need to temper our right to enjoy fragrance with a responsibility to others. Rights always have responsibilities.
post #54 of 86
No politics here, please.
post #55 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwpianoboe View Post

This relates only to city employees, true. However, I do not think that this should be interpreted as a suggestion rather than prohibition. The specific wording is:

Our goal is to be sensitive to employees with perfume and chemical sensitivities. In order to accommodate employees who are medically sensitive to the chemicals in scented products the City of Detroit requests that you refrain from wearing scented products, including but not limited to colognes, after-shave lotions, perfumes, deodorants, body/face lotions, hair sprays or similar products, the City of Detroit also asks you to refrain from the use of scented candles, perfume samples from magazines, spray or solid air fresheners, room deodorizers, plug-in wall air fresheners, cleaning compounds or similar products. Our employees with medical chemical sensitivities thank you for your cooperation.....

The "urged" language does not appear in the official settlement, which can be read in its entirety here:

http://www.onpointnews.com/docs/mcbride_settlement.pdf....For the reasons set forth above, the Court concludes that Plaintiff may proceed with her claim of disability based on the major life activity of breathing, but Plaintiff’s claim of disability based on detergent shopping, speaking, interacting with others and reproduction are dismissed.

The full 14-page opinion can be read here:
http://howappealing.law.com/McBrideVsDetroitOpinion.pdf



Presented like this, the case gains in plausibility and importance. The dismissal of two claims is as important as admitting the basic one, I find. I could easily imagine similar decisions anywhere in the United States, and even beyond.
Thank you for taking the trouble, jwpianoboe !
post #56 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by narcus View Post



Presented like this, the case gains in plausibility and importance. The dismissed claims are as important as the admitted one, I find. I could easily imagine similar decisions anywhere in the United States, and even beyond.
Thank you for taking the trouble, jwpianoboe !

Yes, me too, jwpianoboe, thank You!
post #57 of 86
Mmm...the words 'National Police State' spring to mind......glad I don't live there to be honest, and I fear for my American friends that do.
post #58 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by russnug View Post

As opposed to ABC CBS NBC PBS CNN (make up the news to fit the agenda)NEWS. That's all I'm saying.

Yes. That was the network linked to the story. (and you said plenty)... and that's all I'm saying. :-P
post #59 of 86
I think The Dreamer smells like fabric softener. I love it, and feel that it could be used as a stealth perfume in Detroit. New thread coming...
post #60 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by morrison74 View Post

Mmm...the words 'National Police State' spring to mind......glad I don't live there to be honest, and I fear for my American friends that do.

It is not that bad, there is much distortion of the situation (whether by hyperbole or by "the media" I am unsure). There is much freedom here to do what one wants. Stories like the Detroit story are blown way out of proportion in my opinion... though the basic premise under the (albeit local to Detroit) ruling can stand as a caution.

Also, reading the ruling, as far as I'm concerned, the City of Detroit overreacted (probably with their attorneys' prompting)... even so, the ruling (and the no-scent "policy" if it can even be called that) is not so bad... as the judge obviously thought that the BEST solution was simply removing the coworker who wore perfume from the vicinity of the plaintiff... and wondered why that had not been done. The more ridiculous claims were dismissed.

So those of you who worry the US is or is in the process of becoming a "police state"... no. It isn't. It hasn't. (it came closer though a few years back.)

Not in "my neck o' the woods" anyway. Might be different in some cities, I admit.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: MFD Archive
Basenotes › Basenotes Forums › Fragrance Discussion › Male Fragrance Discussion › MFD Archive › Detroit = fragrance free in the workplace