Asking for a fragrance-free workplace

The short version

Two readable workplace sources frame scent at work in different ways. The Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS) explains how to build a scent-free policy. The US Job Accommodation Network (JAN) explains accommodations for an employee with fragrance sensitivity, and says a blanket ban is probably not reasonable under the ADA. We work from documents only; this page reports what they say, attributed, and is neither legal nor medical advice.

What CCOHS says (Canada)

CCOHS’s Scent-Free Policy for the Workplace, retrieved 2026-11-14, makes these points.

It is framed as a health matter. The page says “Environmental sensitivity is a medical condition” and that “Accommodation is required under the federal and provincial Human Rights Acts.” It describes environmental sensitivities as “a chronic condition whereby a person has symptoms when exposed to certain chemicals,” adding that “Some people report mild irritation, while others are incapacitated.” We did not find the page stating that a scent-free policy itself is a legal requirement; the legal duty it names is accommodation.

Terms are loose. CCOHS says “there is no exact definition for scent-free, fragrance-free or unscented,” and that products labelled unscented may contain ingredients that mask odours, though the terms “can still be a rough guideline when choosing products.” The FDA’s fragrance page (retrieved 2026-11-11) says similarly that even some products labelled “unscented” may contain fragrance ingredients, because a maker may add just enough to mask the smell of other ingredients. See fragrance-free vs unscented and unscented and sensitive don’t mean fragrance-free.

Steps it suggests for building a policy:

• Survey or assess workers “to determine the extent of the issue.”
• Designate one key person to oversee the project.
• Involve the health and safety committee or worker representatives and secure management commitment from the start.
• Present the policy as a result of medical concerns.

What it says a policy should contain: it should be based on the health needs of workers, applied uniformly, and clear that it covers everyone, “including visitors, patients, etc.” The page also advises not limiting it to perfumes and colognes, and suggests posting a list of approved unscented products and where they are available locally. A sample policy on the page extends to cleaning products. For the product side, see our guides to fragrance-free cleaning products and fragrance-free hand soap.

Education and enforcement. CCOHS says the aim is to inform all workers of the health concerns and why the policy is needed. It adds that “In some cases, it may be necessary to approach an individual who continues to use or wear scents,” and that everyone’s cooperation is vital.

Alternatives to a policy. The final section suggests identifying the exact source if possible, reducing emissions from building materials and cleaning products, maintaining indoor air quality, and making sure scents are not recycled through the building.

CCOHS includes a disclaimer that it does not warrant the information is correct, accurate or current. The page shows a fact sheet revision date of 2024-08-29 and a modified date of 2026-10-20.

What JAN says (US)

JAN’s Fragrance Sensitivity page (retrieved 2026-11-14) defines the problem as “either an irritation or an allergic reaction to some chemical,” and says ingredients used in fragrance are not required to be disclosed on labels. It names headaches, breathing problems, asthma and skin irritation as common reactions, and says people with asthma, allergies or other respiratory disorders may be more susceptible. We report these as JAN’s statements and cannot say how any individual would be affected.

On the law, JAN says “The ADA does not contain a definitive list of medical conditions that constitute disabilities” and points readers to separate guidance on whether a person has a disability. It then lists accommodation examples:

• “Remove the offending fragrances,” where possible, especially when the fragrance is unique to the workplace, minimal or under the employer’s control.
• “Remove the employee from the area where the fragrances are located,” usually through remote work or a private office.
• “Reduce the employee’s exposure to the fragrances,” for instance with a private office with its own ventilation. It says employers “cannot force an employee to use a mask/respirator.”

On total bans, JAN says “under the ADA it is probably not reasonable for an employer to have and enforce a total no-fragrance policy.” It also notes that “not all people with fragrance sensitivity will need accommodations to perform their jobs.” On products, it warns that herbal or botanical-oil ingredients can appear even in products labelled “unscented” or “fragrance free.” Our explainers on essential oils and reading ingredient lists cover that labelling gap.

How the two fit together

They are not in conflict. CCOHS describes a workplace-wide policy as one route and lists other approaches; JAN describes individual accommodation and is cautious about blanket bans. A request framed around a specific need and specific sources of scent (cleaning products, air fresheners, a shared area) matches what both sources describe more closely than a request for “no fragrance anywhere.” Which route is lawful or required in your workplace depends on your jurisdiction and facts, which these sources cannot tell you.

Applying this to products

If a policy or accommodation names products, the loose terminology above matters. A list of approved items is something CCOHS explicitly suggests. If you build one, the site’s own test for fragrance-free products is that the maker’s ingredient list has no fragrance, parfum, aroma, perfume, essential oils or fragrance chemicals; that is our rule, not a regulation or a workplace standard. See what parfum means, the roundup of fragrance-free hand sanitizer and fragrance-free deodorant. We name no products here.

Limits

This page rests on two workplace sources, both guidance rather than law, covering Canada and the US. It does not tell you what your employer must do, how to word a request, or whether your symptoms come from workplace scent. For symptoms, see a clinician; for rights, contact JAN, a human rights body, a union or a lawyer. The remaining gaps are listed under “unknowns.”