Employees with chemical sensitivity may be entitled to workplace accommodations, including permission to work from home, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio ruled in Core v. Champaign County (July 30, 2012).
Pamela Core, an employee at the Champaign County Department of Job and Family Services, had asthma and a severe chemical sensitivity. She worked for several years without incident, but when her co-workers began wearing a particular perfume, she had difficulty breathing. The breathing problems the perfume caused were severe enough to necessitate emergency room care.
Core initially requested that her employer ask the employees to refrain from wearing the perfume. Instead, the department told employees not to enter Core’s office and to communicate with her only by email or phone. Her co-workers began mocking her and continued to wear the perfume.
Core’s impairment did not improve and she eventually requested that her employer implement a policy prohibiting employees from wearing the perfume or allow her to work from home. The department denied her request and instead suggested that it ask employees to refrain from wearing the perfume that often triggered her breathing problems.
Core rejected this suggestion as “too narrow” and sued.
In court, the employer argued that it would be impossible to accommodate Core’s alleged disability with a ban on perfume because the facility is open to members of the public.
However, “the purpose of the requested accommodation was not to completely eliminate any possibility that perfume and other fragrances will be worn into the … workplace by members of the public,” the court explained. “Instead, the purpose of the proposed recommendation was to minimize and limit [her] potential exposure to perfumes that trigger her severe asthma.”
The employer also argued that it fulfilled its duty to accommodate when it offered to request that employees stop wearing the perfume that triggered her difficulties.
However, Core’s request was much broader than a request to ask coworkers to avoid the perfume, the court said. She “requested an official workplace policy[.]”
The court said that Core’s request for an actual policy, as opposed to a mere request, is reasonable on its face in light of: 1) the co-workers’ “thoroughly unconscionable behavior” of apparently mocking her severe reaction just days after exposure to perfume required her to go to the emergency room; 2) her co-workers’ intentionally wearing the perfume knowing the reaction it caused to Core; and 3) the department’s failure to reprimand employees for this behavior.
Additionally, a telecommuting arrangement could be a reasonable accommodation, the court noted, refusing to dismiss Core’s claims and allowing the case to continue.
Defining ‘Disability’
While the Americans with Disabilities Act’s regulations do not explicitly state that chemical sensitivity is a covered disability, the agency responsible for enforcement says that it can, under certain circumstances, be a disability that entitles an employee to accommodation.
In a 2007 opinion letter, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said that individuals may be protected if their impairment substantially limits one or more major life activities, such as breathing.
“If the [employee] has been diagnosed with asthma, a particular type of allergy, or other impairment, then he meets the first part of the definition,” the commission said in its letter. “However, breathing difficulties that occur only upon exposure to a particular type of cologne would be insufficient to constitute a substantial limitation in breathing. If there are other colognes or chemicals or substances that also cause severe breathing difficulties, then the individual might indeed have a ‘disability’ as defined by the ADA.”
For additional information about disability accommodations, see Thompson’s employment law library, including the ADA Compliance Guide.