NationStates Jolt Archive

Source (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,12418749-13762,00.html)


Babies charged with looting
From correspondents in Dhaka
March 02, 2005

FOUR Bangladeshi babies appeared in court in their parents' arms accused of looting and causing criminal damage, officials have said.

The magistrate Monday asked the parents to post bail of 3000 taka ($60) for each child whose ages ranged from three months to two years.

The children were among 10 people named in a case filed with police in the southwestern port city of Chittagong.

"I was a bit surprised when I saw the babies appearing as accused people in my court and I granted them bail," said magistrate Ali Noor, who adjourned the case until later this month.

"Clearly, it appears to be a false case, but everything will come out during the police investigation and the report that will be submitted to the court later," he told AFP.

Filing false cases to harass a child's family is a regular occurrence in Bangladesh.

The children all belonged to members of an extended family.

The children's relatives said the allegations stemmed from a dispute over land with a neighbour.

Source (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,12418646-13762,00.html)


Woman sues over perfume exposure
From correspondents in New York
March 02, 2005

A WOMAN has filed a lawsuit against the US city of Norwalk for exposure to her colleagues' perfumes and colognes, alleging officials have failed to lessen her exposure to such scents in the town clerk's office and that she is being harassed.
The suit's filing was reported by The Advocate newspaper in Connecticut, which said that plaintiff Linda Gorman was also seeking an unspecified amount of monetary damages and lawyer's fees.

According to the suit, Gorman's problems started in March 2002, when Town Clerk Andrew Garfunkel hired a temporary staffer whose choice of perfume made Gorman ill.

Garfunkel issued a memo asking employees not to wear perfumes or colognes, but later amended his policy to state that trendy scents, as well as body lotions and detergents, could be used in moderation as long as they could not be detected within 1.6 metres of Gorman.

The temporary hire no longer works at the Norwalk town clerk's office, but in October 2002, another employee was hired who also liked to sport perfume.

The aromas are so strong to Gorman she has to take daily shots of prescription allergy medicines as well as allergy shots, her lawsuit claimed.

Gorman also alleges that Garfunkel gave her negative performance reviews despite her above average performance, delayed her overtime payments, and deliberately moved her work station to further provoke her symptoms.

City lawyer Jeffrey Spahr suggested that someone who "has an allergic condition to scents" should not be working with the general public which is "part and parcel of what her job is".

"To the extent she's claiming she can perform the essential function of her job, I'd disagree with that," said Spahr.

The disgruntled Gorman is also claiming her allergies constitute a disability and that she has been discriminated against under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Talk about your pointless litigation! Perhaps the babies can move to Norwalk and loot all the perfume? :eek:

Wow. What the hell is with all that?
:confused:

The latter half of the original post is typical of victim-laden America these days...

Not that I've ever sued over perfume exposure, but do you guys have any idea how sick some of us get when exposed to scents?

Depending on what scent and the level of exposure, sometimes my body feels like it's burning up, other times I can't breathe, and other times I break out in blisters.

Thank god for scent-free workplaces and gyms!


On the other hand, it sounds like the lady who sued had a lot of chips on her shoulder, not just cologne in the workplace.

Not that I've ever sued over perfume exposure, but do you guys have any idea how sick some of us get when exposed to scents?

Depending on what scent and the level of exposure, sometimes my body feels like it's burning up, other times I can't breathe, and other times I break out in blisters.

Thank god for scent-free workplaces and gyms!


On the other hand, it sounds like the lady who sued had a lot of chips on her shoulder, not just cologne in the workplace.

No offense intended here, but it's not the world's job to conform to those that have allergies, regardless of what reaction their body has. It's up to the individual to make themselves comfortable--be it with antihistamines, masks, oxygen, not going to malls with annoying little teenagers spraying crap in their face, etc.

Perhaps she was just trying to cover up that her husband haddn't showered in a year?

No offense intended here, but it's not the world's job to conform to those that have allergies, regardless of what reaction their body has. It's up to the individual to make themselves comfortable--be it with antihistamines, masks, oxygen, not going to malls with annoying little teenagers spraying crap in their face, etc.
The rest of the US that can be held liable for allergic reactions disagrees

The rest of the US that can be held liable for allergic reactions disagrees

So, I have some cologne on and I'm walking down the street.

Someone is allergic to something in it. They have a reaction, sneeze until they are senseless, fall over and hit their head, and I'M at fault?

Bullshit. Utter bullshit. It's not my fault nor problem that someone was burdened with that situation. The victim mentality currently prevalent in the US sickens the hell out of me. I grew up with a slew of allergies (luckily none were ever at levels that would kill me). Yeah, it sucked. But it's not someone elses' responsiblity to make my life easier.

If someone has allergies, it's not up to OTHERS to fix their problem or bend so they can have some sort of falacious "normal" life. If they want to get out and do everything that others do, they need to be responsible to find a way--not have someone else swoop in and fix it for them--or force others, in some way, to not be able to live their own lives. No, it's not fair, but to create an additional unfair situation to somehow "even" the playing field is extremely illogical.

Besides the fact I do not condone thread necromancy, you missed the point. I was talking about people that can be held liable: companies and such.

Besides the fact I do not condone thread necromancy, you missed the point. I was talking about people that can be held liable: companies and such.

My apologies to you, then.

Companies also should not be held as such. If someone can't physically work in the environment, due to airborne whatever (that doesn't affect the general public like a neurotoxin or other poison or cancer-causing agent), why should the company have to bend, again?

I understand going a certain distance for some physical disabilities, but come on--air?

No offense intended here, but it's not the world's job to conform to those that have allergies, regardless of what reaction their body has. It's up to the individual to make themselves comfortable--be it with antihistamines, masks, oxygen, not going to malls with annoying little teenagers spraying crap in their face, etc.

I am allergic to a lot of perfumes and colognes. When I am around someone wearing scent, I do all I can to minimize my exposure to them - sitting further away, opening a window, etc. Once a person puts on scent, they can't do much to get rid of it, so a stranger walking down the street may be overpowering and can't do anything about it.

However, when you work with a person or persons, day in and day out and they know you are allergic, they should make an effort to not wear scent, or at least wear very little. If it's up to me to make myself comfortable, and asking nicely that people not wear scent around me doesn't work, maybe I should just bring in a hose and spray everyone clean.

Some people are just stupid. You can live without perfume. I cannot live without air. That being said, you can be nice about your requests and try to find a compromise...

I am allergic to a lot of perfumes and colognes. When I am around someone wearing scent, I do all I can to minimize my exposure to them - sitting further away, opening a window, etc. Once a person puts on scent, they can't do much to get rid of it, so a stranger walking down the street may be overpowering and can't do anything about it.

However, when you work with a person or persons, day in and day out and they know you are allergic, they should make an effort to not wear scent, or at least wear very little. If it's up to me to make myself comfortable, and asking nicely that people not wear scent around me doesn't work, maybe I should just bring in a hose and spray everyone clean.

Some people are just stupid. You can live without perfume. I cannot live without air. That being said, you can be nice about your requests and try to find a compromise...

See there's the rub. You're asking. Not telling. Big difference--because law is telling.

If someone would ask me to lay off cologne, or a specific type of cologne, and we have a professional working relationship, I'd try to do something about it. Expecting someone to automatically aquiesce just because a condition exists, that's the demanding part that I have an issue with.

Yes, it's up to you to make yourself comfortable without trampling on someone else's rights (so no hose...). There is no right delineating if someone has an allergy, everyone else has to do everything in their power to make that one person comfortable.

Yes, you need air to live. It's up to you to get it--not up to others to supply you with it. You can ask, but that's about it. If they're unwilling, you can't do anything to them. You'd have to find alternatives at that point--or make yourself so valuable that the business would take steps to maintain your employment, while making an environment suitable to your limitations.

In this country the law says that you should make reasonable adgustments to ensure that those people with a registered disability are not unfairly discriminated against. If the illness is not a registered disability, or the adjustments to be made are unreasonable, then tough. find another job. quite frankly i agree with that law.

In this country the law says that you should make reasonable adgustments to ensure that those people with a registered disability are not unfairly discriminated against. If the illness is not a registered disability, or the adjustments to be made are unreasonable, then tough. find another job. quite frankly i agree with that law.

Another sticky point for me: Too many registered "disabilities". Too many people getting away with collecting money, or forcing unreasonable changes, when they actually aren't disabled.