It's a great summary of the issues. Some of the less talked about points is an outsized disparate impact of these scent machines on reportedly 85.4% of autistic individuals, as pointed in the opening statement of this lawsuit, which I'm sure many HN readers could certainly relate to.
They may be stretching a bit, but the statistics is still on their side, and their filings are very explicit that they actually demand compliance (sure, they probably had to add that for some legitimacy, but they did add that nonetheless).
Honestly, I'd rather my 0.1% in rent would go to these lawyers than to the scent machine companies.
I'm very surprised it even took that long for this to happen. These laws have been on the books for decades, and the scent-free policies have been popping up like flowers ever since the 2009 CDC policy that went as far as prohibit using scented detergent for clothing worn to work (a little extreme, sure, but, at the very least, doing an extra rinse cycle does help a lot).
Many of these policies are more about awareness and civil rights than actual enforcement. If these policies are normalised and seen by everyone, it removes the friction from people for whose benefit these policies were created. So then if you actually need it enforced, it wouldn't be a surprise to anyone of your need for the policy to be enforced.
This filing is worth a read for the entire situation:
* https://colevannote.com/wp-content/uploads/CMP_Greystar.pdf
For those unaware, Greystar is a major property management company in the US for residential apartments:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greystar
It's a great summary of the issues. Some of the less talked about points is an outsized disparate impact of these scent machines on reportedly 85.4% of autistic individuals, as pointed in the opening statement of this lawsuit, which I'm sure many HN readers could certainly relate to.
Hmmm, seems more like attorney's stretching things looking for a shakedown.
They may be stretching a bit, but the statistics is still on their side, and their filings are very explicit that they actually demand compliance (sure, they probably had to add that for some legitimacy, but they did add that nonetheless).
Honestly, I'd rather my 0.1% in rent would go to these lawyers than to the scent machine companies.
I'm very surprised it even took that long for this to happen. These laws have been on the books for decades, and the scent-free policies have been popping up like flowers ever since the 2009 CDC policy that went as far as prohibit using scented detergent for clothing worn to work (a little extreme, sure, but, at the very least, doing an extra rinse cycle does help a lot).
Many of these policies are more about awareness and civil rights than actual enforcement. If these policies are normalised and seen by everyone, it removes the friction from people for whose benefit these policies were created. So then if you actually need it enforced, it wouldn't be a surprise to anyone of your need for the policy to be enforced.