The empowerment of individuals with a special situation continues. The most recent example seems to be law firms being asked by allergic staff members to control the amount of perfume and other scents their employees wear. A few firms have declared themselves to be Fragrance Free Zones and prohibit the wearing of any scents. Anyone who has ever ridden in a crowed elevator with an overly perfumed or after-shaved man or woman may think this is a wonderful idea. But, implementation is more difficult that might be initially imagined. A recent ALA discussion thread tells of the spread of the ban to hair spray, deodorant, hand lotion and the soap in wash rooms. Counterbalancing arguments are heard from individuals needing fragrances to cover excessive body odor caused by several forms of disease or menopause which, of course, gives rise to possible coverage under the American’s With Disabilities Act.

 

Law firms can learn a lot from the experience of hospitals who, for obvious reasons have dealt with issues like this for a longer time. Hospital administrators and HR Directors recommend considering the following issues in deciding the appropriateness of workplace limitations:

1.      How widespread is the cause of the allergy? If it would debilitate those who are allergic in almost any setting, a workplace ban may not positively affect their situation.

2.      How severe is the effect of a ban on non-suffering personnel? Businesses were quick to ban peanut products from vending machines because the impact was not consequential. 

3.      Would the ban adversely impact the delivery of the firm’s core services? A law firm could not effectively function without printers and copiers to accommodate someone allergic to graphite based products.