No..

Post #323,000 by beepster 3/16/10 4:58:29 PM Reply	No.. we've given it to the courts. And what you have are people saying "that seems fair"...rationalizing the decision, and then the powers that be say "we never want that to happen again" and this generates these policies to manage to the extreme exception. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #323,011 by Another Scott 3/16/10 7:43:32 PM Reply	I still don't see it. The law of the land is that employers must make reasonable accommodations. People who feel that that isn't happening can bring a case in court. That's the way the law works. Again, this has nothing to do with "zero tolerance". You've hinted that you think it should have been resolved some other way, but the system worked as designed. Her management didn't address the situation to her satisfaction, so she went to court. A judge said she had a case, and her employer eventually settled. She shouldn't have to grin and bear it, or be reassigned to a different job, or whatever. If you think that management should have handled it differently, saying the decision is a "stupid legal settlement" is a funny way of showing it. http://www.detnews.c...ing-strong-scents There are no draconian rules in place as a result. There are common-sense recommendations to employees. There is no edict that nobody can wear perfume. She wasn't awarded $100M. Does any ruling as a result of the ADA lawsuit somehow imply a "slippery slope" or a future of "zero tolerance"? I'm not seeing it. If I seem sensitive about this subject it's because <rant>automatic reactions (by too many, not necessarily participants here) that courts are invariably stupid, and plaintiffs are invariably greedy grifters who want everything handed to them, get on my nerves.</rant> In the vast majority of cases, issues in civil court are much more nuanced than any newspaper ever presents. And this poor, sensationalized reporting, seems to me to be getting worse in the hunt for clicks and eyeballs. (There are, of course, exceptions - e.g., http://en.wikipedia..../Pearson_v._Chung - , but even then the courts usually end up with the right decision.) FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #323,015 by boxley 3/16/10 9:27:20 PM Reply	court is an american right of redress of last resort and all should be allowed to go there. Frivolous suits need to be slapped down immediately by smart judges. This was a dilemma that HR should have fixed, the settlement was reasonable and the managment (assuming nepotism, it is detroit) has been suitably warned. If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
Post #323,030 by beepster 3/17/10 9:17:24 AM Reply	Did you read the original link? that suit (that everybody assumes as reasonable) resulted in a workplace ruling that NO ONE should wear smelly things in the office. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #323,031 by Another Scott 3/17/10 9:52:23 AM Reply	Yes, I did. I think my links are more accurate. YMMV. More - http://www.detnews.c...140308/1006/rss01 The placards will be placed in the Cadillac Square Building, Coleman A. Young Municipal Center and First National Building. They ask employees to refrain from "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 ..." Other notices will go in the new employee handbook and mentioned in ADA training, according to the settlement. Placards in 3 buildings. Revisions to the employee handbook. Asking that employees refrain from wearing scents. It's hardly "zero tolerance". Cheers, Scott.
Post #323,034 by beepster 3/17/10 10:29:47 AM Reply	So you have confidence it will stop there. Good for you. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #323,037 by jake123 3/17/10 11:08:01 AM Reply	When it comes to the air fresheners they should be banned... their chemistry is nasty.
Post #323,032 by drook 3/17/10 9:53:50 AM Reply	Which is why the manager should have handled it If you refuse to handle things at your level, you're telling the person above you that you can't exercise any judgment. So they'll hand down a rule that makes sure you don't have that option any more. -- Drew
Post #323,043 by mhuber 3/17/10 1:10:21 PM Reply	I did, looks like idiot management, not bad courts. They fail to manage effectively, so they get sued and lose. Instead of managing effectively in response, they do something stupid. The court didn't order "no scents". The idiots who didn't tell somebody to be reasonable did. What probably happened: 1) Plaintiff a little sensitive to ridiculous levels of scents. 2) Co-worker with minimally functioning nose loves him some Axe products. Perhaps as a substitute for personal hygiene, perhaps because the ads convince him that synthetic stench will drive the ladies wild. Or maybe co-worker is an Old Spice man. Or one of those women who go through a can of air freshener in a week. Whatever, it is probably annoying to most people and causes physical reactions in a few. Makes it hard for plaintiff to get work done. 3) Plaintiff asks boss to talk to co-worker. Boss lacks guts to do his damned job. 4) Co-worker continues chemical warfare campaign, probably oblivious to the collateral damage. 5) Plaintiff asks Boss's boss for help. 6) Boss's boss lacks guts to do his damned job. [repeat 3-6 until] 7) Plaintiff runs out in-organization options. Sues. 8) Court decides the law says what it says, i.e. boss ought to do his damned job, boss's boss ought to make him do it, and there are Consequences if that doesn't happen. 9) Boss's boss would rather print some signs and issue rules than do his damned job i.e. demand that boss do his damned job i.e. tell co-worker a quart of after-shave is supposed to last more than a week or swap desk assignments so co-worker is next to somebody else with a minimally functioning nose. 10) Right-wingers butt-kiss the boss-fairy by blaming everybody else involved. This could easily have been solved with a tax cut. ------------ I work in a place that has a no-scents policy. In practice, it means "don't stink the place up". Everybody there uses appropriate levels (by U.S. standards) of scented product. And yes, the owner checks. The policy means that if there is a problem the boss can refer to the policy, so it isn't personal. ------------ I left my deodorant in an overnight bag in my car the other day and used some of my son's Axe. Man, that stuff is vile. I used the quickest of sprays and the aroma annoyed me all day. --------------------------------------- Why, yes, I did give up something for lent. I gave up making sense.
Post #323,049 by beepster 3/17/10 5:00:01 PM Reply	Interesting take especially when you get to number ten. Does this mean that you think these zero tolerance rules are a right wing phenomenon? Interesting. Zero tolerance policies mean many levels of reasonable expectation are violated. Meaning your lather rinse repeat steps happen often and everywhere. And I'm sure, in the beginning, they probably all started with something that seemed completely reasonable. And we'll end up with someone being fired for Chanel...as now we end up with kids being suspended for 1 inch long plastic GI JOE guns. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.

Welcome to IWETHEY!