A lady in California was awarded $20 million from her former employer for a number of reasons, including having panic attacks which she said the medication for it caused her to have an "embarrassing body odor". The court of appeal reduced the amount to $3 million. The body odor was only 1 aspect of the 'evidence' against her employer and supervisor, who she said made disparaging remarks despite "knowing" it was a "result of the medication". It doesn't seem to say what the odor smelt of. Possibly this is a precedent that body odor as a medical condition could have some employment law rights.
Short article on the Charlene Roby body odor dismissal case
Roby versus McKesson body odor case : full legal paper in pdf
...The Court of Appeal suggested that supervisor Schoener‟s demeaning
comments about Roby‟s body odor were necessary personnel management actions,
not acts of harassment, because Schoener needed to take action in response to the
complaints of other employees. (See Hannoon v. Fawn Eng’g Corp. (8th Cir.
2003) 324 F.3d 1041, 1047 [Title VII case].) Here, however, the evidence
supports the jury‟s conclusion that Schoener handled the matter in a way that was
unnecessarily demeaning, including reprimanding Roby in front of coworkers and
telling Roby “to take more showers.” It was the demeaning manner in which
Schoener addressed this issue that constituted the harassment...
0 comments: