Plant Services - December 2007 - (Page 38)

IN THE TRENCHES Chris to wear a mask, and changing the air freshener in the men’s room. The ADA doesn’t require that Acme redesign its workplace, but rather make a reasonable attempt to accommodate Chris. My guess is that Acme complied with the “reasonable accommodation” clause and is in the clear. Moreover, Acme dismissed Chris because of poor performance, not allergy issues (although he could claim they were related), so this might not be an ADA case at all. Would a pre-employment physical have helped? Maybe, but it’s rare that we ask office workers to undergo such examinations, although this is becoming more common given the escalating cost of medical benefits. At the very least, it’s reasonable to require that the employee complete a health questionnaire, which would include questions about allergies (and additionally have the employee certify to the accuracy of that information). Any problems that show up on the questionnaire should be further explored before hiring. Professor Homer H. Johnson, Ph.D. Loyola University Chicago (312) 915-6682 hjohnso@luc.edu An attorney says: See it all work together at Alemite.com/systems www.Alemite.com Whether a court would determine that Chris’ allergic reaction to scents was a disability protected by the ADA is open to debate. If a court made that determination, Acme would have to make reasonable accommodation unless doing so posed an undue hardship. It’s difficult to envision that a ban on wearing perfume and scented lotions would cause an undue hardship. Alternatively, Acme could have allowed Chris to take leave when he was symptomatic. Under the Family and Medical Leave Act, he could have taken as much as 12 weeks of leave a year intermittently, and Acme could have provided additional leave beyond that. Terminating him for requesting accommodation for a condition protected under the ADA, however, would leave Acme in legal hot water. But apart from the legal issue, the allergic employee issue is one easily resolved. Acme got part of the solution right. An employer can relocate the employee’s work area away from other employees, and nearby employees can be prohibited from wearing scent. Allowing Chris to wear a mask also was a good idea. Did Acme ever think of adding an air filter to his work area? Or allowing him to use sick days or paid days off on days he was especially symptomatic? Of course, an employer can dictate an employee’s hygiene. Even Acme has had trouble in the past with employees who sport an offensive odor from poor hygiene. Just as an employer can send an aromatic waitress home until she cleans up her act, Acme could discipline and even discharge employees who violated the perfume ban, December 2007 1890_07ALE330AS_2_PS.indd 1 38 5/15/07 9:25:55 AM www.PLANTSERVICES.com 07ALE330 http://Alemite.com/systems http://www.Alemite.com http://www.PLANTSERVICES.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Plant Services - December 2007

Plant Services - December 2007 Contents From the Editor: Orange Alert The PS Files: Pressed into Innovation Up and Running What Works: Samuel Adams Facility Refreshed in Cincinnati Energy Expert: Energy's "Perfect Storm" Technology Toolbox: Know Your Position Cover Story: Get a Grip on the Steamer Piping: Outside Looking In Web Hunter: Potpourri X In the Trenches: Making a Big Stink Boiler Room: Getting Educated

Plant Services - December 2007

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.