I hope the lawsuit gets thrown out.
This sentence stuck out to me:
Quote:
|
He dismissed McBride's claims that her chemical sensitivity also impairs her ability to shop for detergents, speak, interact with others, and reproduce.
|
Seriously?
The woman can't reproduce because of this?
Sounds like she was swinging for the fences, and she barely got it out of the infield.
I hate lawsuits like this. Sue to get the offender to stop wearing the stuff; that's fine. But to claim that you're due monetary damages, and then make idiotic claims like you can't reproduce, is greedy.
Also, I love shit like this:
Quote:
|
McBride is seeking unspecified damages. Thompson said the major goal of the lawsuit is not monetary damages but "to educate people about the issue and seek voluntary compliance, where possible."
|
"Unspecified damages"?
"Major goal"?
I can't see any reason to award monetary damages for this, unless it can be proven that the woman can't reproduce, shop for detergent, or interact with others. Those claims are absurd.
If she's suing so that the offender can't wear the perfume anymore, I'm on the side of the plaintiff. If she's seeking monetary damages, then I can't support her...