COURTS RULE, EMPLOYERS MUST FACE MCS AND TOXIC INJURY

[Guest guest]

http://www.ei-resource.org/news/multiple-chemical-sensitivity-news/employers-mus\

t-face-multiple-chemical-sensitivity-and-toxic-injury-issues-courts-rule/

Employers must face multiple chemical sensitivity and toxic injury issues courts

rule

News - Multiple Chemical Sensitivity News

Written by Hogg

Saturday, 10 April 2010

In Detroit, Michigan, USA, a city employee won a lawsuit after her managers

failed to take her complaints that co-workers' perfume was making her sick.

Meanwhile, in Australia, substantial damages were awarded to an airline cabin

attendant whose respiratory illness was attributed to toxic cabin air.

In the first case, City of Detroit employee McBride filed a lawsuit under

the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). After her complaints that a

co-worker's perfume made it difficult for her to breathe were ignored by her

superiors she decided to let a court decide whether her chemical sensitivity

should be taken more seriously.

The city argued the perfume sensitivity did not qualify as a " major life

activity " under the ADA but, in what is now a landmark case, the judge

disagreed, stating that the ability to breathe freely certainly qualifies as a

major life activity.

McBride was awarded $100,000 compensation and the City was ordered to enact a

new policy on fragrances to include posting notices in buildings where McBride

works, asking other city employees not to wear scents at work.

The notices will be worded as follows: " To accommodate employees who are

medically sensitive to the chemicals in scented products, the city of Detroit

requests that you refrain from wearing scented products, including but not

limited to colognes, after-shave, lotions, perfumes, deodorants, body/face

lotions, hair sprays or similar products. "

McBride as well as winning a personal battle to have her health protected at her

place of work may have set a precedent that will now force all employers (at

least in the US) to take the complaints of chemically sensitive individuals

seriously to avoid potentially expensive litigation.

The wording of the notices to be placed by the City of Detroit is precisely what

is needed in every workplace to protect the not insignificant 5%-25% of

individuals who are estimated to be sensitive to scented products to some

degree.

Perhaps emploers will now begin to take the position that many North American

colleges and universities have done and adopt fragrance bans to protect employee

health and avoid future lawsuits, only time will tell.

In Australia we have another first and another precedent being set for employers

to consider more carefully the health effects of the environments in which their

employees are asked to work. In the first verdict of its kind anywhere in the

world a court awarded flight attendant Joanne substantial damages for

respiratory damage caused by toxic fumes in the cabin of the BAE 146 regional

jet aircraft on which she flew.

On 4 March 1992, toxic fumes entered the cabin in the " bleed air " from the

aircrafts engines during a descent into Brisbane. Since this time has

suffered from chronic respiratory problems. The New South Wales Court of Appeal

court upheld the award of A$139,000 (US$129,000) compensation, originally

awarded a year ago by the Dust Diseases Tribunal. It is to be paid by the

insurers of the now defunct East-West Airlines, which had appealed against the

tribunal verdict.

Bleed air is air that passes through the engines before being circulated through

the cabin ventilation system. Aircraft manufacturers, airlines, and aviation

authorities have recently admitted that such bleed air potentially contains

toxic chemicals derived from fuel, oil, lubricants and other sources picked up

as the air passes through the engines.

In June another case in Australia, brought by cabin crew from the same airline

group, but this time against the aircraft manufacturer, will be heard.

A number of support and advocacy groups have been established worldwide by

former airline employees including pilots and cabin crew along with frequent

flyers whose health has been damaged by toxic cabin fumes. This case now

provides the precedent needed for other cases to succeed and provides incentive

for aircraft manufacturers, airlines and regulatory authorities to take steps to

address this important health issue.

With these two unprecendented court rulings coming along at the same time, this

is likely to be one week that those affected by chemical injury will not forget.