Skip to main content

"Scents in the Workplace" Do NOT Amount To a Valid Hostile Work Environment Claim


Alanis v. Metra - United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division


Facts:  Elda Alanis ("Alanis") worked in the Office of Business Diversity and Civil Rights at Metra ("Metra").  A few years after she had been working there, she started to feel unwell and her doctors diagnosed her with several medical conditions.  When she returned to work, she began to have reactions to smells in the workplace such as odors from perfumes, food items, cleaning supplies, etc.  As a result, she requested an accommodation of a scent free workplace.  Metra granted the accommodation requested and instructed employees in the office not to use scented products.  However, several employees, including Alanis's supervisor continued to do so.

Alanis brought suit against Metra and alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"). 

Holding:  (Note, this analysis focuses only on the hostile work environment portion of the claim).  The District Court noted that while the Seventh Circuit has yet to decide whether a hostile work environment claim is actionable under the ADA, an inference could be made that the claim does in fact exist under the ADA.  As a result, the Court pointed out that to succeed on a hostile work environment claim, Alanis would need to show her workplace was both subjectively and objectively hostile.  For those unaware, court's have held a hostile workplace exists when the workplace is permeated with insult, ridicule, or intimidation so severe or pervasive that it alters the conditions of the plaintiff's employment or creates an abusive working environment.

In this case, however, the Court held the facts failed to establish a hostile work environment.  Although some of Alanis's co-workers continued to wear cologne and perfume after being instructed not to do so or ate lunch near Alanis in which she could smell the co-workers' food, these actions were held to not be objectively abusive.  While these actions could be considered an annoyance, there was no evidence that there was anything physically threatening towards Alanis.  Taking an objective look at the situation, while Alanis may have been personally offended by the actions, there was nothing so severe or pervasive to be objectively abusive.

Judgment:  The District Court held that when looking at the totality of the circumstances, assuming that a hostile work environment claim is actionable under the ADA, Alanis had failed to allege sufficient facts to establish a valid hostile work environment claim.  Consequently, Metra's motion to dismiss this cause of action was granted.

The Takeaway:  It has been a little while since I have come across a hostile work environment claim dealing with "scents".  I wanted to highlight this case to show readers that what may be objectionable/offensive to one person does not always mean that a hostile work environment claim exists.  If you put yourself in Alanis's shoes, being exposed to perfume and cologne scents from co-workers or being in close proximity to when they ate their lunch might be "offensive" and create a difficult environment in which to work, given her condition.  

However, when the Court examined whether this complained of conduct was both subjectively and objectively hostile, Alanis simply could not meet that threshold to prevail.  The important thing to remember with the objective portion of this analysis is that when considering whether a "reasonable" person would find the situation hostile, Alanis had simply failed to allege sufficient facts to prevail.  Without being able to show the complained of conduct was severe or pervasive, I think the Court reached the proper conclusion that Alanis had failed to allege sufficient facts to proceed on this portion of her claim.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Shah

Date:  February 8, 2016

Opinion:  hr.cch.com/eld/AlanisMetra020816.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more