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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more