Live (Scent) Free or Die

We seem to be OK with making businesses "smoke free." So why should going "fragrance free" be any different, especially if the business in question is run by the state?

That is the underlying principle behind HB 1444.

As legislation goes, this one's short, sweet and to the point: "State employees who work with the public shall not wear fragrances or use scented products during regular business hours." The bill is scheduled to go up for House vote on Wednesday.

Lead sponsor, State Rep. Michele Peckham, R-North Hampton, concedes the bill is technically "dead" after it got mixed reviews from her colleagues and the House Constitutional Review & Statutory Recodification Committee last month deemed it "Inexpedient to Legislate."

But she is optimistic that this controversial topic will be addressed – and corrected – without making the act of splashing on too much cologne a criminal offense.

Peckham brought forth the legislation after a constituent complained about doing business at a state office and being so overtaken by an employees fragrance that it triggered a grand mal seizure.

The woman who complained also pointed out that there are plenty of businesses – from the U.S. Center for Disease Control to the City of Portland in Oregon –  that are "fragrance free" for similar reasons.

Peckham said she understands that her fellow state reps might be uncomfortable legislating whether someone can wear perfume.

But she believes that individual sensitivities to the chemicals in perfumes or after shave lotions are no different from understanding the adverse effects of second-hand smoke on some, or the physical intolerance certain people have toward gluten.

"I've done tons of research on this. Twenty years ago we didn't understand the adverse effects of second-hand smoke, for example," Peckham said. "I see it as much like the gluten thing – my son is gluten intolerant, and when he was first born I had to make everything for him by hand; now restaurants are going gluten-free as they realize the number of people affected by gluten. I fully believe that someone could be overwhelmed by another person's use of perfume, to the point that it could cause a medical reaction."

State Rep. Joe Krasucki, R-Nashua, also a member of the Constitutional Review Committee, said he found the issue to be intriguing, but isn't sure there's sufficient cause to generate a law prohibiting people from wearing perfume.

"The peson who initiated this attributed her seizures to the fact that someone was wearing a heavy fragrance. While it's konwn that some stimuli can precipitate a seizure, I don't know if aroma or fragance can do it. One problem I have with this is there was no medical testimony; just anecdotal," Krasucki said.

"I do think it's a problem, and an everyday problem. Everyone's experienced it, whether it's a co-worker who reeks of cologne, or you supervise someone who wears too much or, frankly, exhibits too much of their own 'fragrance,' if you will. Certainly if you manage people, you will find this comes up quite a lot. But it's subjective and will open a hornet's nest of a whole lot of things amounting to a whole lot of nothing."

As someone who spent most of his career supervising others in a work setting, Krasucki said he believes the best way to address a problem like this is internally.

"If someone's smell is offensive, complain to a supervisor or manager. It's a personal thing, and while I can sympathize with this individual, I don't think it rises to the level of – or would be enforceable as –  a law," Krasucki said.

Although Peckham said there is some support for this legislation among her colleagues, the best solution may actually come about now that the issue has been aired publicly, so to speak.

"On the bright side, after the hearing I was approached by a lobbyist for the state employees union, who told me that the union's aware of this issue, and will work with me to try and make it an internal policy," said Peckham.

"I really knew that all along, that it should be a matter of policy rather than law, but at least this bill opened up the conversation," Peckham said. "We might not get results tomorrow, but maybe by the time this session is over, we'll be able to work with the union to have a policy in place."