Comments on: Another Detroit co-worker’s-perfume suit https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/07/another-detroit-co-workers-perfume-suit/ Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Sun, 30 Nov 2008 14:58:49 +0000 hourly 1 By: Update: “Judge says perfume lawsuit can proceed” https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/07/another-detroit-co-workers-perfume-suit/comment-page-1/#comment-35751 Sun, 30 Nov 2008 14:58:49 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=5086#comment-35751 […] Nov. 27, opinion in PDF courtesyBashman, h/t reader Vicky Gannon). We covered the case earlier here, here, and […]

]]> By: Ima Fish https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/07/another-detroit-co-workers-perfume-suit/comment-page-1/#comment-8101 Fri, 06 Jul 2007 16:14:23 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=5086#comment-8101 “This is a very real condition that this woman has…”

Lisa, I’m curious how you know more about the case than the judge who oversaw it?

If you’re arguing that generally the condition exists, I agree. I also agree that the employer should have instituted a no perfume policy as no one has a right to wear perfume to work, as far as I know. But if there is no evidence she suffered from the condition, I think she should have received nothing. There is no cause of action for being annoyed at work.

]]> By: Lisa Tye https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/07/another-detroit-co-workers-perfume-suit/comment-page-1/#comment-8100 Fri, 06 Jul 2007 15:54:35 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=5086#comment-8100 This is a very real condition that this woman has…maybe this lawsuit will bring about change (that today’s chemicals in fragrances are toxic).

]]> By: Ima Fish https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/07/another-detroit-co-workers-perfume-suit/comment-page-1/#comment-8099 Fri, 06 Jul 2007 10:17:12 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=5086#comment-8099 Ok, if “it was not clear from the evidence that Weber had a perfume allergy” why did she get any money?!

]]>