It’s five answers to five questions. Here we go…

1. I’m allergic to my coworker’s perfume, and HR says I have to manage it on my own

I work hybrid and am required to be in office a couple days a week. I’m also allergic to certain scents and perfumes. Things like vanilla and citrus don’t bother me, but strong floral scents cause my sinuses to swell up, culminating in a migraine. It’s not pleasant, so I try my best to avoid anything that triggers it.

Unfortunately, nobody seems to take scent allergies seriously or know they exist at all. My colleague, Linda, wears a perfume so strong that I can smell where she’s been 10 minutes after she’s been there. There’s an entire quadrant of the office I avoid because she’s sitting there and I can’t bear the miasma emanating from her cubicle.

My manager, knowing how miserable I have been, reached out to HR about it because we didn’t want to cause any awkwardness or discomfort to Linda and wanted to go about things on the level. HR told her it’s the employee’s responsibility to manage their own allergies. They asked what I do in public. For one thing, in public, I have the option to remove myself from the situation, whereas I’m required to be here for my job and don’t have any avenues to escape. Furthermore, I’m having to isolate myself socially and politely decline invitations for coffee runs from people since being in the elevator with Linda for a few minutes is enough to derail my whole day. As such, after HR’s callous verdict, I’ve spent the past two years silently avoiding her and that part of the office, feeling like there’s nothing I can do to improve my situation.

I’ve gently told her a few times I’m allergic to perfume. Things came to a head a few weeks ago when she was crowding me in a tiny room and I had to reiterate that I’m allergic to her perfume, and she was totally shocked by this revelation, asking everyone else in the room if she smelled. My director was there and smoothed things over with, “She just has a sensitive nose!” The more I thought about it, the more it bothered me. Why am I being forced to tiptoe around someone’s need to smell pretty at the expense of my right to exist in comfort?

After that incident, I cried in the director’s office and told her about what HR said. She told me Linda is a kind person and I should speak to her directly about it. I feel so awkward about this suggestion. I’m not uncomfortable with talking to people to resolve conflicts, but, having never been put in a situation like this, I have no idea how to approach it. I’m not anywhere near the level of demanding nobody uses laundry detergent or needing unscented soap in the bathrooms, but even so, this feels like an unfair stance by HR. How would you suggest I approach this problem? Should I talk to Linda directly? If so, what should I say?

“It’s the employee’s responsibility to manage their own allergies”? Legally speaking, that’s only true to a point. If your allergies are severe enough, the Americans with Disabilities Act requires them to try to find a way to accommodate you, and in a lot of cases implementing a fragrance policy would be considered a reasonable accommodation under the law. (Here’s some info from the Job Accommodation Network on this, and here’s some more.) They could also consider creating a fragrance-free zone for you and others who need it, but that would need to include accommodations for things like elevators too. So first and foremost, HR isn’t doing their job here, and you and your manager should feel free to cite the law and push back.

Beyond that, though, it’s not a bad idea to try to talk to Linda directly since she’s the main source of the problem right now. Since it just came up, you have an easy opening. Sample language: “I’m so sorry to ask this, but I do seem to be allergic to the perfume you wear. It’s a lovely scent but it gives me sinus problems and migraines. Would you be willing not to wear it to work?” If she refuses, then you can say, “In that case, please understand that I can’t be in a small room with you — it’s nothing personal, just a medical thing.” But at that point, HR is really the right next step (preferably with your manager’s involvement this time).

2. Is a thumbs-up emoji an acceptable email response?

I am fully prepared that this is a “me” thing and not worth the battle, but I’ve recently been introduced to Gmail’s emoji response feature. I emailed my direct report and they used the “add reaction” feature to reply with a thumbs-up.

Professional communication is important in our work. I don’t feel disrespected that he replied that way to my email, but I’d be horrified if he did it to someone senior to me or to one of our clients. It just strikes me as unprofessional.

Am I overreacting? I don’t want to be a micromanager, but this does bother me.

I think “horrified” is a bit much, but if you don’t want them to use that feature in certain situations, just let them know that! It’s perfectly fine to say, “I’ve noticed you using the Gmail thumbs-up response recently, and I want to make sure you know it’s fine with me but you shouldn’t use it with higher-ups or clients since some people will find it too informal for those contexts.”

3. When a company actively avoids naming a salary range, are they trying to lowball you?

I applied for a job that might be a slight step back from my director level position now. I’ve had two conversations and a brief email exchange with HR where they keep asking me what I’m looking for, and I at one point politely but directly said I was looking for what they’ve budgeted for the position and how the bonus structure works and an overview of benefits as I’ve requested before. They promised before to send something and now committed to having someone call with the info. I suppose I can presume they hope to lowball someone, right? Otherwise why do this? This is a large, publicly traded company on NASDAQ.

Yes, companies do this because they hope to be able to pay you less. They don’t always consciously think of it that way — it’s less likely that they’re rubbing their hands together with glee while they contemplate lowballing you and more that they think, “We don’t want to pay more than we have to, so let’s see what people are looking for” — but at the end of the day, it amounts to the same thing.

They know the range they’ve budgeted. It’s not a mystery to them. They’re just trying to avoid telling you because they think that if they do, you’ll be more likely to ask for or expect the top of that range.

4. Who should be in the loop when someone is out on medical leave?

Our office manager is upset because she didn’t know about another staff member going on medical leave (using FMLA). After some dramatics, I forwarded her the email sent previously letting her and the management team know about the employee’s upcoming leave. The office manager doesn’t need to know about the leave but insists on knowing absolutely everything. (She doesn’t manage scheduling, calendaring, or time off. She does manage another admin who manages scheduling/calendaring.)

My boss scolded me, even after I showed her the email/paper trail. I suggested that the management team share major updates in a private, password-protected notebook since things were getting lost in email. This is a work approved, fire-walled notebook tool. She said that this was a violation of FMLA laws. I have whiplash from her aggressive stance. Sharing through email is fine but sharing in a password-protected notebook isn’t?

Am I violating FMLA laws by sharing the fact that a staff member is on FMLA with the entire management team? To clarify, this would just be a note about their leave dates, not the “why” or any other details of their leave.

It’s not illegal to share that an employee is on medical leave (or going to be out on medical leave), as long as you don’t share the specific reason for the leave (because that’s private medical information that FMLA requires be kept confidential from people without a true job-based need to know).

It’s not clear why your boss is okay with informing the management team by email but objects to your password-protected notebook idea, but both would be fine under the law. It’s also not clear why your boss objected to you forwarding the office manager an email that she’d apparently already been included on originally.

5. What to do after being a misclassified contractor

My mom recently got a new job after two years of being a 1099 contractor in an office. She was required to work in-office at specific hours for 40 hours a week, and had to request days off. She was also sometimes expected to be on-call over the weekend (not sure if there was any additional compensation). To me, there is no world in which this wasn’t a misclassification; they were treating her as an employee while paying her as a contractor (she paid her own payroll taxes and received no benefits). She also wasn’t the only one — there were at least two other women with the same terms.

In an area with few opportunities, while she was employed it was too risky to raise the issue as she would have just been fired and lose the employment altogether. I know the next piece of advice is “hire an employment lawyer.” But can you give more information on what that entails and what that process looks like?

Actually, in this case she doesn’t even need a lawyer. She can simply request that the IRS determine what her correct employment status should have been by filing IRS Form SS-8 (Determination of Worker Status for Purposes of Federal Employment Taxes and Income Tax Withholding). She’ll answer a series of questions about the nature of her work and the structure of her relationship with the employer; once the IRS receives the form, they will investigate and issue a ruling. It’s free to file it, and it’s fairly straightforward and absolutely worth doing. (She does need to factor in that her former employer will figure out that she did this, but it’s likely still worth doing.)

That said, if she does want to talk to a lawyer before proceeding, here’s info on how to find one.

It’s five answers to five questions. Here we go…

1. My manager has been freezing me out since I talked to HR about her

Last May, I finished my masters and in September landed a job in my field and specialty. The first few months were great with my boss, Claire. She was super nice, let me know everything that was going on in the department, I got along with my other coworker in my department, and I finally felt like I had found my job and people. I even told Claire I had a disability that I put on my application. She was very understanding and supportive.

Then in January, things changed. Claire accused me of trying to do her job anytime I suggested something and said I needed to stick to the things I was hired to do and to stop acting like the smartest person in the room. I was pulled into HR about this time and was told Claire made an off-hand comment about my disability and I needed to fill out official paperwork so I would be legally protected. The final straw when Claire yelled at me for making a judgment call when another department needed something from us and I was the only one in our department there, and then asked what my problem was while giving a textbook description of my disability. I went to our department head, John, and told him everything. He told me he’d talk to her and that I should go to HR.

I went to HR and everything led to a hostile work environment investigation. I did not want that. The conclusion was there was no hostile work environment and my boss and I have different communication skills. However, during it, it was discovered I had made my coworker, Maddie, feel uncomfortable. No one was written up and nothing was done. Claire, John, and I were each given a different HR class to take. I had to take one about bullying in the workplace. My boss had to take one about the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Since this happened, Claire has given me the silent treatment. 95% of our communication is through email. I am no longer privy to all the happenings of our department. I find out things by accident, when I walk in on her and Maddie talking. Claire goes out of her way to be passive-aggressive and petty to me in the emails. My cubicle is right across from her office and she used to always keep her door open, but now she keeps it closed most of the time. She didn’t wish me happy birthday on my birthday, when several people in other departments brought me gifts and cards. However, Maddie’s birthday was a week later and she came in with a card for her. John gives me good feedback, as do the other departments I work with.

Is there anything I can do? I’m not exactly ready to run back to HR since this is how we got here. I didn’t expect Claire’s and my relationship to be the same. I just didn’t expect this. Jobs in my field are rare.

HR probably did have a legal responsibility to investigate after you reported Claire’s comments; once they’re aware of something like that, they’re legally obligated to take action, even if that’s not what you wanted.

But Claire is retaliating against you for talking to HR and for the subsequent investigation, and that’s illegal. Federal law makes it very clear that it’s illegal to retaliate against an employee for making a good-faith complaint of discrimination, even if the complaint were eventually found to be baseless.

I know you don’t want to go back to HR, but if you want the situation to change, that’s really the next step. You’d go back to them and explain that Claire’s behavior toward you has noticeably changed since the investigation, that you’re concerned she’s retaliating against you for making a good-faith report, and that you’re formally requesting the company’s assistance in shutting down the retaliation. If you don’t trust HR to handle this competently and think it will make things worse, this may not make sense to do; in that case, you could consider a similar conversation with John, or one with a lawyer.

(I am curious about what happened between you and Maddie that led them to send you to an anti-bullying training and whether you think there was any merit to that. The answer wouldn’t change the steps that are available now, but if there were legitimate concerns about your behavior toward Maddie, that probably puts you in a less sympathetic position, although HR would have the same obligations regardless. It would make it messier, though. And also, if HR thinks Claire didn’t create a hostile work environment and this is just different communication styles, then what’s up with them making her take a class on the ADA? It doesn’t smell right.)

2. We’re written up for being one minute late

I have worked for manufacturing companies for over 20 years, all in the office and a few of those years as mid-level management. I have a college degree, further education, and am salary. My current employer just implemented writing office staff up for being late. This is not a situation of being 10, 15, or 30 minutes late, nor of chronically being late. This is, “You were one minute late today.” Performance doesn’t matter, staying late or otherwise being early or on time doesn’t matter. Bad weather is not an excuse. Really, no excuse is allowed. And you can be terminated for a few instances in a year. None of these roles see clients in-person or are call center type jobs.

Of all the companies I have worked for, this is the second one to implement this. I left the first in part because of it and will be leaving this one. It seems bananapants to me. Is this typical for what others see in this type of company? I get that is exists for the product floor but for salaried office staff?

No, this is not typical and yes, it is bananapants. There are jobs where you really do need to be at your desk and ready to work by a specific starting time because you need to answer client calls, etc., and that can be true regardless of whether you have a degree, are salaried, and so forth. But that is not most jobs, and “writing people up” (a fairly ridiculous concept in itself) for being a minute later, regardless of context, is absurd and infantilizing.

Related:
ridiculously rigid attendance policy

3. My company can’t move past my conduct five years ago

I have been with my construction company for 14 years, during which time I have significantly expanded my skill set and reached a senior level with a strong salary. However, my history here is complicated. Five years ago, while struggling with severe alcoholism, I had a significant professional lapse that resulted in my employer giving me an ultimatum: I had to complete rehabilitation and maintain sobriety to remain employed.

I have now been sober for five years and have consistently performed as an exemplary employee. While my manager has forgiven me, it is clear that the family who owns the business has not. Despite my contributions, I am consistently passed over for public recognition and achievements, and the environment feels increasingly hostile.

I am weighing whether it is better to stay and maintain my current status and salary or if it is time to cut my losses and move to a company where I can have a fresh start. I can sense that they can barely stand the sight of me; I feel like the ultimate pariah and it is very uncomfortable. I would appreciate any guidance you could offer on whether I should stay or begin looking for new opportunities.

Yes, start looking! Without question. For whatever reason, they can’t get past what happened, and you’re better off going somewhere else where you can start fresh.

Sometimes that happens! When people get used to seeing you a certain way, sometimes it can be really hard for them to see you differently, no matter how much you demonstrate that you’re no longer that same person. Sometimes that’s a failing on their side. Sometimes it’s because the earlier breach of trust can just never really be repaired, even when everyone hopes to. Either way, you’re better making a clean start with a company that doesn’t have that history with you.

4. Employer wants us to report all outside work, not just conflicts of interest

My company likes to say they are not trying to be “Big Brother” but seem to enact policies that probe much beyond what other companies in the same industry ever do. I am very used to anti-moonlighting policies and those make sense: don’t do what we pay you to do for other people. Well, my company has a policy we’ve somewhat gotten around but they have recently been changes that makes it a bit harder. They want to know all outside work, including your hat-knitting business, working for a family business, unpaid time you may volunteer for anything that may constitute a business, how many hours per week, etc. Everyone must submit a form with “nothing to report” or report anything else and attest that they’ve covered all scenarios.

My work is in technical compliance, and I would never moonlight without explicit transparency for a number of reasons. I have a part-time side hustle in a creative realm completely unrelated to this work. There is zero overlap, and I do the side work under an alias. You could never google my name and find my side project. My boss knows the general nature of the side work, and has been fine with me not reporting it.

Many of us feel this policy is reaching too far into our personal lives and demanding information that doesn’t impact our jobs or our time at work. How should we handle this? Our company is shifting more and more toward Big Brother tracking and monitoring and it may be a mass exodus around here…

Most likely, they’re requesting it because they’re concerned that if they leave it up to each individual employee to decide what’s relevant, someone may make the wrong call and not report something that’s actually a potential conflict of interest. They’ve decided it’s safer to ask you to report it all so that they can decide if it’s a conflict or not. Depending on the type of work you do for your company, that’s not necessarily outrageous; there are jobs where that would make sense.

If you think it doesn’t make sense for your line of work, you and a group of coworkers can certainly try pushing back, explaining why you think it’s unnecessary — but all it takes to cause this kind of policy change is them having one person who decided something wasn’t relevant to report when it actually was. They may be overreaching in other areas, but this one probably isn’t worth the capital to try to fight.

Related:
interview with a conflict of interest professional

5. Companies promoting their businesses in comments on my LinkedIn posts

I post regularly on LinkedIn and have a good following in my industry. This past week, a company liked my post and added a comment, which was a promotion for their business. I’m considering deleting it because I don’t want my posts/profile used to promote other businesses. On the other hand, it reflects on them and maybe it seems quite dramatic to delete it. What are your views?

Delete it without hesitation. It’s spam! There’s nothing dramatic about deleting spam.