When it comes to accommodating a disability, companies need to draw the line somewhere and decide what’s reasonable and what isn’t. But where is that line? Read the facts of this real-life case and decide — who won?

The facts:

A woman complained that she was allergic to perfume worn by her co-workers. Her manager asked the department to refrain from wearing perfume and moved the employee’s desk to an isolated area, but the problems persisted. She continued complaining to her manager and named specific co-workers she thought were wearing perfume. The manager spoke with those employees, who all denied breaking the new rule. Eventually, the woman left work without permission because of an allergic reaction. She was fired for that, and other performance issues.

The employer said:

The employee sued, claiming the company failed to accommodate her allergy, which was a protected disability. But the company argued it had done everything possible to minimize her exposure to perfume.

Who won the case?

Answer: The employer.

Why: According to the court, the woman wanted the company to create a workplace that was “entirely odor-free” — which, of course, is impossible. On the other hand, the judge ruled the employer had done enough to try and reasonably accommodate her disability. Anything more would have been too much to ask.

Where the company went right: It took the complaint seriously and looked for ways to solve the problem. Not doing anything would likely have landed it in hot water.

Cite: Kaufmann v. GMAC

Tags: accommodations, ADA, allergies, perfume