Skip to content


Archives for

See all posts in the network tagged with

Buffalo Prevails in Race Discrimination Suit

The US Second Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a decision yesterday in a complicated race discrimination case involving the Buffalo Fire Department and the Men of Color Helping All Society, Inc., (M.O.C.H.A).

MOCHA sought to challenge promotional examinations for lieutenant held in 1998 and 2002 as having a disparate impact on black candidates. All tolled, two separate lawsuits and three separate appeals had been filed in the case. The 2nd Circuit referred to the three appeals as MOCHA I, MOCHA II, and MOCHA III. The July 30, 2012 decision addressed MOCHA II and MOCHA III. Quoting the court:

“A common question runs through these appeals, prompting us to hear them in tandem and now to decide them in a single opinion: Can an employer show that promotional examinations having a disparate impact on a protected class are job related and supported by business necessity when the job analysis that produced the test relied on data not specific to the employer at issue?”

Rather than give you my interpretation of the decision, here are the important points distilled down from 47 pages. (more…)

Posted in Civil Suit, Constitutional Rights, Discrimination, Municipal Liability, Promotions

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Spokane Valley Captain Pushing Right to Send Religious Emails

A Washington state fire captain is contesting discipline handed down over his use of the fire department email system to deliver religious messages.

Spokane Valley Fire Department Captain Jon Sprague was suspended without pay for two 24-hour shifts for conduct unbecoming and violating an order.

Captain Sprague is the founder of a Christian support group, the Spokane County Christian Firefighter Fellowship. He uses the department’s email system to send out announcements for meetings and events as well as a monthly newsletter.

In January Captain Sprague was cautioned about the improper use of the email system. In April he was issued a letter of counseling and in May he received a letter of reprimand. The 2 day suspension was issued on June 27, 2012.

Captain Sprague was quoted in the Spokesman Review  as saying he has no intention of stopping. “Personally, it’s a matter of faith and conscience.”

IAFF Local 876 has filed a grievance over the discipline and Captain Sprague has filed a complaint with the EEOC alleging a 1st Amendment violation and religious discrimination. Also at issue is the fact that other firefighters have used the email system to send non-fire department related messages, such as for fundraisers.

More on the story.

Posted in Constitutional Rights, Disciplinary Action, Discrimination, First Amendment, Web/Tech

Tagged , , , ,

Two Fire Departments One Truck and Federal Court To Decide Who Gets What

Two fire departments, one in New Jersey and the other in North Carolina, have found themselves in the middle of a complicated commercial lawsuit in Federal court over title to a brand new American LaFrance brush truck.

Last September, the Audubon Park Volunteer Fire Department in Audubon Park, New Jersey, agreed to purchase a $180,000 brush truck from American LaFrance LLC. The transaction was structured as a lease purchase whereby the fire company paid $29,763 down, with the balance to be financed through a lease with TD Equipment Finance, an affiliate of TD Bank.

The truck is a 2012 American LaFrance Brush Truck (identified in the complaint as a Pastak model with a  VIN # 1FDOW5HT4CEA71862). Before the unit could be delivered, it apparently required some work to be performed by Anchor-Richey Emergency Vehicle Services, Inc., of Taylorsville, North Carolina. Anchor-Richey also happens to be an American LaFrance dealer.

In February, TD Equipment Finance wired the $150,000 balance to American LaFrance as final payment for the vehicle. The manufacturer’s Statement of Origin for the truck (the document that goes to the registry of motor vehicles for purposes of registering a new vehicle) was updated to list Audubon Park VFD as the owner with TD Equipment Finance as a lienholder.

When the vehicle was completed, Anchor-Richey refused to turn it over to Audubon Park VFD, claiming that the $150,000 payment should have been made payable to it, not American LaFrance. Despite months of wrangling the matter could not be straightened out.

On July 16, 2012, Anchor-Richey informed Audubon Park and TD Equipment Finance that it sold the brush truck to a fire company in North Carolina. That prompted TD Equipment to file suit in Federal District Court in New Jersey against:

  • American LaFrance
  • Anchor-Richey
  • The unidentified fire company (listed in the suit as XYZ Fire Company of North Carolina).

The suit seeks monetary damages for breach of contract, fraud, misappropriation, and  intentional interference with a business relationship, as well as an injunction to recover possession of the vehicle.

Cases like this make me wish I paid a little more attention in my commercial law class, but fundamentally at issue is going to be the rights of the lienholder (TD Equipment Finance) versus the mechanic’s lien rights of Anchor-Richey for the work they put into the vehicle.

Unclear at this point is why American LaFrance has not stepped to the plate to resolve this dispute without the parties having to make a Federal lawsuit out of it.

While many municipalities require successful bidders to post a performance bond to cover themselves in the event of such unforeseeable disputes, many volunteer fire departments that operate outside of municipal purchasing systems do not. Certainly the value of a performance bond may be one point to take away from this case.

Here is a copy of the complaint. Complaint

More on the story.

Posted in Apparatus, Civil Suit, Volunteers

Tagged , , , ,

Weingarten Rights and Union Rep Availability

Today’s Burning Question: How does the Weingarten Rule apply during an administrative investigation when the union representatives will not make themselves available for the employee?

Answer:  The short answer is that a union that plays that game, plays it at the peril of their own member – but the burden will be on management to prove that the union was given a reasonable opportunity to attend the meeting and chose not to.

The Weingarten Rule came from a very important labor case, NLRB v. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (1975), a private sector case under the National Labor Relations Act. Weingarten held that it is an unfair labor practice to deny union representation to an employee who requests it prior to or during an investigative interview.

Weingarten has been recognized universally throughout the United States for both private and public sector employees. The rationale for the Weingarten rule is that employees have a right to engage in concerted action for mutual aid and protection, and that denying an employee union representation during a disciplinary meeting or hearing violates that right.

Union firefighters and fire service managers need to understand several key points about  Weingarten rights:

  • The meeting must be investigatory in nature. When the purpose of a meeting is simply to discuss or convey management’s complaints about the employee’s performance in a non-disciplinary manner, the employee’s Weingarten rights have not been denied by not having a union representative present.
  • The right to have a union representative present applies only in situations where an employee reasonably believes that the investigation will result in disciplinary action.
  • The employee must request that a union representative be present, or the right is considered to be waived. Weingarten does not require an employer to warn an employee of the right to union representation.

When Weingarten rights are violated, the employer is liable for an unfair labor practice, and the employee may not be disciplined based upon the information obtained from the improper questioning.

If an employee asks for union representation for an investigative meeting, the questioning should be stopped pending the arrival of a union representative.  Once present, the union rep has the right to be informed of the subject of the investigation, and given an opportunity to confer with the employee privately before questioning begins. During the interview, the union rep may interrupt if necessary to clarify a question or object to intimidating and/or confusing tactics.

The reasonableness of the time that must be granted for the union rep to arrive is a function of the facts of the case. The time of day, the availability of a union representative on duty, the potential need to locate an off-duty rep if an on duty rep is not available, etc. all factor in. Also – the member has a right to a union rep, but not necessarily the union rep of his/her choosing.

An investigator seeking to question an employee who has asked for a union rep, must be able to prove he/she acted reasonably under the circumstances in terms of notifying the union and waiting for the rep to arrive. Document the efforts made to reach the union and the length of time it takes for the rep to arrive.

There is no bright line rule such as 20 minutes or 2 hours. It is based upon what is reasonable under the circumstances. Given the consequences of violating Weingarten, it is probably better to err on the side of caution.

Posted in Burning Question, Disciplinary Action, Labor Law

Tagged , , , , ,

Albuquerque Captain Wins Right to Run for State Office

Albuquerque Fire Department Captain Emily Kane wanted to run for state representative. Standing in her way (besides her opponents) was a city charter provision that prohibited employees from either running for or holding state office.

When Captain Kane was informed by her department that she faced discipline over her decision to run, she decided to challenge the provision as violating her rights under both the Federal and state constitutions.

In June, Second Judicial District Judge Alan Malott granted Captain Kane’s request for a temporary restraining order preventing the city from taking any disciplinary action against her. Last Friday District Judge Beatrice Brickhouse ruled the charter provision to be unconstitutional, a violation of Captain Kane’s First Amendment Rights.

More on the story.

 

AFD captain can’t be fired for campaign: krqe.com

 

Posted in Civil Suit, Conflicts of Interest, Constitutional Rights, Disciplinary Action, Ethics, First Amendment, Politics

Tagged , , , , ,

Topeka Deputy Chief Seeks $1.3 Million for Sex Discrimination

A deputy chief who was laid off in 2010 and filed a $1.3 million claim with the city of Topeka last year alleging sex discrimination, has moved her allegations forward by filing suit in Federal court against both the city and IAFF Local 83, Topeka Firefighters.

Kathy Petty was one of Topeka’s first female firefighters, and the first to reach the rank of deputy chief. She had been in the cross-hairs of the union, with 86% of the rank and file having expressed their dissatisfaction with her performance in a 2006 poll.

Her position was eliminated in February, 2010. The city claims the position was eliminated to save money, but Chief Petty disputes that fact. She also claims she was fully qualified for three openings (deputy chief in October 2010, training officer in July 2011 and deputy chief in November 2011) and despite being on the recall list she was passed over.

The suit seeks punitive damages against Local 83 and alleges that the “decision to not re-hire and to not consider her requests for re-employment were retaliatory for Petty’s Charges alleging sex discrimination, and were motivated by the City’s and Local 83’s preference for male employees in the TFD.”

The complaint includes the following allegations:

  • At all times pertinent hereto Local 83 dominated and controlled the City’s Human Resources Department and the City’s management in decisions regarding personnel within the City’s Fire Department
  • Local 83 and the TFD are now, and have always been, dominated and controlled by males.
  • Upon Petty’s promotion to Deputy Chief, some firefighters began to treat her negatively, including a male who for the purposes of this First Amended Complaint will be identified solely as “TC”.
  • Petty was treated differently because she “was a female and was ultimately [TC’s] boss and that did not sit well with him.”
  • In or about the summer of 2008, the word “SLUT” was written in large letters in chalk on the sidewalk in front of Petty’s house.
  • In or about the summer of 2008, Sergeant Tom Glor with the City’s Police Department called Petty and informed her that someone on Petty’s street was keeping track of her and monitoring her arrivals and departures from her home.
  • Petty believed the person monitoring her behavior was TC, and Sergeant Glor confirmed Petty’s belief.
  • TC monitored Petty in an effort to uncover behavior that would result in Petty’s termination because he did not want to report to a female.
  • Petty believes Local 83 supported these efforts by TC, and similar efforts by others, because Plaintiff was female.
  • On one occasion, TC called council members and Chief Giles to report that Petty was off duty and not on vacation leave time.
  • Shortly after Petty’s termination, she went to Local 83 for assistance in pursing her wrongful termination.
  • Local 83 initially voted to support Petty but later tabled the motion and asked Petty to come before the union for a question and answer session.
  • On May 20, 2010, three weeks after the question and answer session, Petty received a letter from Local 83’s attorney stating that the union voted not to support Petty.
  • Local 83’s decision to not support Petty was a departure from its historic position of supporting male members.
  • Local 83’s decisions were based on Petty’s gender and were made in an effort to aid, abet, incite, compel and/or coerce the City’s discrimination and retaliation.
  • Throughout Petty’s employment with the TFD, she had been told numerous times that it was “too bad” she was not male.

Here is a copy of the complaint. Petty v Topeka

More on the story.

Posted in Civil Suit, Discrimination, Labor Law, Municipal Liability, Politics, Wrongful termination

Tagged , , , ,

FLSA 20% Rule

Today’s Burning Question: How does the FLSA 20% rule with regard to volunteers work? We are having a debate over this at our department and our Firehouse Lawyers seem to disagree.

Answer: The FLSA’s 20% rule with regard to volunteers is essentially – that volunteers who receive some nominal compensation do not lose their status as volunteers provided they receive “generally, an amount not exceeding 20 percent of the total compensation that the employer would pay to a full-time firefighter for performing comparable services.”

An example: if the total compensation for full time firefighters is determined to be $40,000 per year, and a volunteer is given an $800/year stipend, then because $800 is less than 20% of the total compensation there is no FLSA violation.

However, if a volunteer were to be compensated at a higher rate, say $8,500/year – then it would be an FLSA violation and the department would then have to pay the firefighter at least minimum wage for all hours worked.

To determine “total compensation” the FLSA requires a department to look at what they pay their own hourly employees, and include additional benefits such as pensions, health care, and vacations. For departments that have no full time employees, they may look to comparable departments in the area.

Posted in Burning Question, FLSA, Volunteers, Wage and Hour

Tagged

Most Sued Fire Chief Now 8-0 in Jury Trials

Fire Chief Dennis Rubin is one of the most forward thinking chiefs of this era (hey… you guys from DC and Atlanta… yeah you… put down those rocks… hear me out… you too Hookman). Dennis Rubin is also the most sued fire chief of this era… at least according to my database.

Going into today, Chief Rube’s record in jury trials was 7-0. Based on a jury verdict today in Ham et al v. City of Atlanta et al, he is now an amazing 8-0. That is an extraordinary record. Here is a press release … ok – a “blog release”… from Chief Rubin himself.

I would like to share some great news with you.  The three charges against me were denied by the 8 person jury in the US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.   Judge J. Owen Forrester presided over this case.  Judge Forrester is a Senior Judge of the United States District Court.  The case (Ham el al v. Atlanta & Dennis Rubin) claimed that I promoted black members based on their race and not on their merit or capabilities.  The abstract describing this case is on the internet.

For the record, this is the eighth time that I have been ordered to appear before a jury for some type for work related claims against me, both personally and professionally, during my tenure as a fire chief.  Thus far, I am 8 and 0, with all verdicts having been decided in my favor.  There is at least one more Atlanta case preparing to go to trial sometime in the future (it is almost 6 years post employment).  The number of DC trials waiting for me, in the wings, is anyone’s guess.  The next Atlanta case (Martin et al v. Atlanta & Dennis Rubin) is based on the complaint that I only promoted black members to the rank of battalion fire chief.  The actual record will reflect something different than what is written by the Martin complaint.

The DC cases I have where Chief Rubin is a named defendant are:

  • BURTON et al v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al      1:2010cv01750
  • EDWARDS v. RUBIN et al     1:2010cv01579
  • SULLIVAN v. FENTY et al      1:2010cv01395
  • EDWARDS v. RUBIN et al     1:2010cv00452
  • STEINBERG v. FENTY et al  1:2009cv01299
  • BOWYER et al v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al     1:2009cv00319
  • COLEMAN v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al  1:2009cv00050
  • SIMBA v. FENTY et al    1:2008cv01692
  • LINDSEY v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al   1:2007cv01939

There are a number of other DC cases where he will likely figure prominently, including:

  • Theresa Cusick v. District of Columbia
  • Brant M. Woodhouse v. District of Columbia Fire and EMS
  • Wesley Hamilton et al v. DC, DC Fire & EMS
  • Lawrence Clark v. DC Fire & EMS
  • Tarick Ali v. District of Columbia and DC Fire & EMS
  • Vanessa Coleman v. District of Columbia

Thinking about becoming a fire chief?

It would be easy to assume the problem here rests solely with Chief Rubin, but that would be a gross oversimplification of the problem.  Fire chiefs have to make decisions and when people don’t like those decisions fire chiefs get sued. Chief Rubin’s predecessors and his successors have been sued. The chiefs of all major fire departments get sued and get sued regularly.

The reality is that leadership is dangerous business… not dangerous in the physical sense that firefighters typically encounter – but dangerous in terms of putting yourself out there to become a target for those unhappy with your decisions. The name calling, the cowardly internet character assasinations… those are just annoyances… but the law suits are costly, emotionally and financially, to fire chiefs and their families.

Love him, hate him, you have to admit it takes courage to stand in there and take the kind of abuse that goes along with being the fire chief of a major city like Atlanta or DC these days. Yes it is different from the courage it takes to make a tight hallway or get a difficult roof – but courage is courage. I tip my hat to Chief Rubin and congratulate him on his 8-0 record.

Here is the appellate decision in the Ham case that paved the way to the jury trial. Ham v Atlanta

Posted in Civil Suit, Historical

Tagged , ,

Rapper Apologizes for A Pole In My Pants Video

An entertainment firm, Play Wit It Entertainment, has issued a public apology to the Jackson, Mississippi Fire Department on behalf of  “Hollywood Luck” following a controversial  rap video that showcased a JFD ladder truck and turnout gear. The department reportedly has taken “severe” disciplinary action against those involved in making the truck and PPE available, but the details have not been released.

The apology said:  ”As entertainers we were unaware of any policies, laws or wrongdoings that were made during the time of creating our video. Words cannot express how truly sorry we are for any inconvenience that we may have caused our city.”

A new version of the video has been released that omits the JFD ladder and PPE.WLOX.com – The News for South Mississippi

Posted in Disciplinary Action, Ethics, Humor, You Can't Make This Stuff Up

Tagged , , ,

Massachusetts Firefighter Allegedly Drove Apparatus Without a License

A Lowell, Massachusetts firefighter who was found not guilty of drunk driving is now in hot water for having driven fire apparatus while his license was suspended.

Firefighter Donald Goyette was arrested on October 20, 2011 by Massachusetts State Police and charged with drunk driving, a lane violation, and refusal to submit to a breathalyzer. The refusal offense triggered an automatic six month suspension of Goyette’s driver’s license.

Goyette never informed his superiors of the offenses and despite a jury verdict in his favor on the drunk driving offense, his license remained suspended on the refusal charge. Never the less, it appears that Goyette may have continued to drive fire apparatus while on duty for the entire six months his license was suspended.

According to the LowellSun.com  neither the fire department nor the city manager were aware that  Goyette’s driver’s license had been suspended until they were informed by a reporter. Thereafter, Goyette was placed on unpaid administrative leave.

The details are available in the LowellSun.com web site. Its worse but I won’t go into it.

The story should not sound all that unfamiliar (remember Haverhill, Massachusetts firefighter Kevin Thompson who allegedly drove fire trucks for years without a license) and again raises questions about what fire chiefs need to do to manage the off-duty misconduct and driver’s licensure of firefighters. Many departments mandate that firefighters report all off duty criminal and driving offenses. Some are now resorting to performing periodic criminal background checks as well as driving record checks.

Neither of these activities offer a guaranty that this kind of misconduct will be caught, but they are at least a step in that direction.  Seriously… a reporter had to break this news to the fire department? How can reporters possibly be watching this kind of thing closer than we are?

Are we at the point where a company officer needs to check the driver’s license of his/her personnel each shift? It is a sad state of affairs that such a practice must even be contemplated.

That question leads to another: did others within the department know about Goyette’s situation and choose to cover for him? “I got your back”… can be both a strength and a weakness of our fire service culture.

When it leads to a reporter breaking a story like this I’d have to say it is the latter. 

Posted in Apparatus, Criminal Law, Disciplinary Action, You Can't Make This Stuff Up

Tagged , , , , ,

Police Fire Wars in Mississippi

A Mississippi fire chief and a county deputy sheriff are the latest participants in the ongoing Police-Fire Wars.

The incident occurred last Sunday at a motor vehicle accident in Poplarville, Mississippi. Allegedly the single vehicle involved in the crash was on its roof and its occupants were treated and transported.

The vehicle’s owner did not want to pay for a wrecker, so Pearl River County Sheriff’s Office Corporal Joe Garcia was planning on allowing an unidentified person to turn the vehicle back onto its wheels using a winch.

Poplarville Fire Chief Mike White had a concern about flipping the car due to the presence of leaking fluids and the proximity of onlookers. At one point Corporal Garcia physically restrained Chief White and later arrested and charged him. The episode was caught on tape.

As the video shows, the question again comes down to who was in charge… and as we have seen time and time again the way police officers tend to handle disputes over who is in charge is by arresting fire and EMS personnel.WLOX.com – The News for South Mississippi

Posted in Criminal Law, Disciplinary Action, Humor, Police-Fire, Politics, Wrongful Arrest, You Can't Make This Stuff Up

Tagged , , , ,

NJ Supreme Court Rules Against Rescue Squad Immunity

On Tuesday, the New Jersey Supreme Court handed down a decision paving the way for a jury to decide whether personnel assigned to the Plainfield Rescue Squad were negligent in not immediately transporting a shooting victim, as opposed to performing CPR for 30 minutes on scene.

Here are the facts in the court’s own words:

Shortly after 5:00 a.m. on August 4, 2004, twenty-five-year-old Odis P. Murray was shot in the chest by his younger brother outside their home at 418 Parkside Road in Plainfield. Their parents, Geraldine and Odis E. Murray, who were already awake, were alerted by “loud noises” and went outside to investigate. They found their son, Odis, lying in the street behind his car with a gunshot wound in his chest. He was conscious and able to speak and identified his brother as the shooter. Mrs. Murray—a critical-care nurse by profession—immediately returned to her home and called 9–1–1. The time was approximately 5:12 a.m. Three minutes later, a Plainfield police officer appeared on the scene. At 5:16 a.m., a Plainfield Rescue Squad (Rescue Squad or Squad) ambulance—staffed by two Emergency Medical Technicians-basics (EMT-basics) and one volunteer in-training—arrived. A mobile intensive care unit, known as Mercy 9, was dispatched from defendant John F. Kennedy Medical Center in Edison at 5:13 a.m.1 Mr. and Mrs. Murray averred in certifications and deposition testimony that Mercy 9 never came to the scene.

Given their status as EMT-basics, the two Rescue Squad members had authority, among other things, to assess vital signs; administer oxygen; manage cardiac, respiratory, and diabetic shock emergencies; perform pulmonary and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR); and provide emergency treatment for bleeding and “chest-abdominal-pelvic injuries.”…

According to the Squad members, the patient did not have a pulse and was “unconscious and not responding to verbal stimuli or painful stimuli.” They began giving him CPR and oxygen through “a bag valve mask,” and then “hooked him to a defibrillator,” which registered “ ‘no shock advised.’ “ They then continued performing CPR and ventilation. During this process, Mrs. Murray asked the Squad members why they were not transporting her son to the hospital or intubating him—that is, placing a tube down his larynx to secure an airway. When Mrs. Murray asked those questions, in her opinion, the Squad members “looked at [her] like a deer in headlights.” Muhlenberg Regional Medical Center—the nearest hospital—was only minutes away.

Approximately fifteen minutes after their arrival, the Squad members called for a Medevac helicopter to transport the patient to a hospital. That request was canceled because protocol did not allow for such a transport when a patient is in cardiac arrest. Eventually, Odis—who weighed between 260 and 270 pounds—was secured on a board and placed in the ambulance. Not until 5:47 a.m.—more than thirty minutes after first appearing at the scene—did the Rescue Squad members take the patient to Muhlenberg hospital. On their arrival there, hospital personnel intubated the patient and attempted to insert an intravenous line. Odis, still alive, had an active blood pressure. The bullet had perforated his aorta and severed his spinal cord. By 6:10 a.m., he was pronounced dead. The autopsy report declared the cause of death as “[p]enetrating gunshot wound to the chest.”

The Murrays retained as an expert Assistant Burlington County Medical Examiner Dr. William L. Manion, who expressed the following opinions in his report. The Rescue Squad members “wasted over 30 minutes at the scene” while performing ineffective CPR, thus depriving the patient of “any chance of surviving his injury.” He needed an immediate transport “to Muhlenberg Regional Medical Center Emergency Room where a surgical trauma team could have opened his chest, stopped blood loss and taken him to the [operating room] for surgical repair.” Although “mortality from injuries to the thoracic aorta is high,” despite the “tremendous delay in transporting” Odis to the hospital, he still “demonstrated a blood pressure of 66/47 and EKG activity in the emergency room.” “Had [the patient] been transported promptly he would have had a high degree of probability of surviving the bullet injury.”4 “He essentially died without the benefit of surgical and emergency services provided by a professional trauma center only two minutes away.” Dr. Manion concluded that the members of the Squad engaged in “significant deviations from usual standards of rescue squad practice [that] were significant contributing factors to [Odis's] death.”…

Plaintiffs Geraldine and Odis E. Murray … filed a wrongful-death/survival action against defendants Plainfield Rescue Squad and John F. Kennedy Medical Center, claiming that defendants’ negligence proximately caused the death of their son. The complaint alleged that the Rescue Squad’s members failed both to provide critical emergency-medical treatments to Odis and to transport him promptly to Muhlenberg Regional Medical Center for life-saving medical intervention. The complaint also alleged that the Mercy 9 paramedics operating out of JFK Medical Center never arrived at the scene or, alternatively, if they did, failed to take necessary life-saving measures, such as starting an intravenous line, intubating the patient, monitoring the patient’s cardiac condition, and giving emergency medications. Plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages against defendants….

The suit did not name any of the individual members of the rescue squad or Mercy 9, but instead sought to hold the rescue squad and the hospital liable for the actions of their employees. The trial court ruled that the hospital had statutory immunity, and that the rescue squad was similarly immune plus had protection under the state’s Good Samaritan Act.

The plaintiffs appealed initially to the Appellate Division of New Jersey Superior Court, where the Good Samaritan Act was found not to apply to an emergency to which a rescue squad was dispatched. However, the squad was held to be immune under N.J.S.A. 26:2K–29.  The Plaintiffs appealed that ruling and the issue before the New Jersey Supreme Court was a limited one: whether the rescue squad had statutory immunity under N.J.S.A. 26:2K–29.

N.J.S.A. 26:2K–29 states:

“[n]o EMT-intermediate, licensed physician, hospital or its board of trustees, officers and members of the medical staff, nurses or other employees of the hospital, or officers and members of a first aid, ambulance or rescue squad shall be liable for any civil damages as the result of an act or the omission of an act committed while in training for or in the rendering of intermediate life support services in good faith and in accordance with this act.”

In deciding the case, the NJ Supreme Court concluded that N.J.S.A. 26:2K–29 provides immunity protection to individual members but not to the emergency organization for which the individual members work. The court was quite blunt in its reasoning: “The Legislature knows how to write an immunity statute covering both an entity and its individual members.”

The court rejected the logic that “ if a Squad member is not liable under the immunity provision of N.J.S.A. 26:2K–29, then the Squad cannot be liable”, pointing to other immunity statutes that grant protection to both individual members and the organization.

“The Legislature chose to provide immunity to volunteer rescue squads, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A–13.1, and to rescue squads rendering advanced life support services, N.J.S.A. 26:2K–14. By the clear language of N.J.S.A . 26:2K–29, the Legislature chose not to provide immunity to rescue squads, as entities, rendering intermediate life support services. If the failure to provide immunity to such rescue squads was an oversight, any corrective measure must be taken by the Legislature.” It should be pointed out that the Plainfield Rescue Squad was not a volunteer rescue squad, nor was it an ALS unit. This it could not take advantage of the immunity protection afforded to either of those entities.

Here is a copy of the decision. Murray v Plainfield Rescue Squad

The big take away from this case is that the court did not find the EMTs to be negligent, nor the Plainfield Rescue Squad to have been liable. Rather, the court concluded that the Murrays have the right to have their case heard by a jury.

News coverage of the decision.

Posted in Civil Suit, Duty to Act, EMS, Immunity, Municipal Liability, Negligence, Wrongful death

Tagged , , ,

Philly Firefighters File New Action to End 2009 Stalemate

IAFF Local 22 has once again taken the City of Philadelphia to court over the 2009 collective bargaining agreement that remains unresolved. The union has thus far prevailed at every decision point, yet Mayor Michael Nutter continue to defy arbitration awards and court rulings hoping for a resolution on his own terms.

Local 22 president Bill Galt was quoted as saying “My members feel we’re just being slapped in the face here.  We’re getting absolutely no respect from this administration, and it’s wrong.”

Posted in Civil Suit, Labor Law, Municipal Liability

Tagged , , , ,

Politics and Discipline in North Las Vegas

The city manager of North Las Vagas has placed Fire Chief Al Gillespie on paid administrative leave, but the reasons for that leave are being hotly disputed.

The firefighters union, IAFF Local 1607 says it is because Chief Gillespie refuses to implement draconian cuts that will jeopardize firefighter and public safety. A recently laid-off deputy chief, Kevin Brame, agrees.

However, the city manager, Timothy Hacker, contends that the move was due an injury that occurred to a member during a training exercise in January.

For those who are not aware of who Al Gillespie is, he is the current President of the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC). That honor is not bestowed upon just anyone. I have known Chief Gillespie for over 16 years – we went through all four years of EFO together – and we are friends,  so it is a little hard for me to be objective on this one.

The fact that the firefighters union is standing solidly behind the fire chief says a lot in this day and age. The fact that Chief Gillespie ordered the layoff of Chief Brame and Chief Brame came to his defense says a lot as well.

As for why a city manager would place a fire chief on paid administrative leave in July over an injury that occurred in January… well the act speaks for itself.

 

Posted in Disciplinary Action, Politics

Tagged , ,

Massachusetts Dispute Boils Over into Federal Court

A dispute in Attleboro, Massachusetts that has been simmering for years has finally spilled over into a 33 page, 14 count Federal lawsuit that names over 10% of the department and the union as defendants.

Captain Dennis Perkins has filed suit against the City of Attleboro, former fire chief Ron Churchill, David Hazzlehurst, Brian Dubuc, Glen Livesey, Gerald Brogan, James Washington, Vincent Bailey, Jeffrey Parham, Edward Guillette, Stephen Marcotte,  Michael Wilson, Walter Guertin, Craig Lander and Attleboro Firefighters IAFF Local 848, alleging:

  • Violation of 1st Amendment Rights
  • Violation of 14th Amendment Rights, due process
  • Violation of Civil Rights under §1983
  • Conspiracy to violate Civil Rights
  • Common law conspiracy
  • Violation of state law civil rights
  • Violation of privacy under state law
  • Defamation
  • Intentional interference with a contractual relationship
  • Negligence
  • Negligent supervision and training
  • Intentional infliction of emotional distress
  • Negligent infliction of emotional distress
  • Retaliation

The facts are hotly disputed, and they are complicated. Captain Perkins claims that back in 2009 he was opposed to Fire Chief Churchill being granted a special exemption from an age-related mandatory retirement. That position, the Captain claims, caused the fire chief and the union to turn against him, fabricating the details of a July 4, 2009 verbal disagreement he had with a black firefighter, Vincent Bailey.

Following the July 4 incident, Captain Perkins was investigated for racial discrimination and suspended for two 24 hour tours (equal to one week).  FF Bailey filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, who found probable cause to believe the fire department had created a racially hostile work environment. The city subsequently settled with FF Bailey for $25,000 for emotional distress.

Here is a copy of the complaint, with all of the sordid details and allegations, including:

  • “The defendants intentionally, willfully, recklessly and maliciously misaligned the plaintiff and retaliated against the plaintiff because of his actual and/or perceived lack of support [for] defendant Churchill, and defendants acted under color of authority in gross disregard for the plaintiff’s rights,”
  • “As a consequence of Defendants’ actions, the Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer damages including, but not limited to loss of income and benefits, loss of personal and professional reputation, other financial losses and emotional and mental distress, and the Plaintiff’s damages continue to date.”
  • “Defendant Attleboro, by and through its Personnel Director, Defendant Churchill, and Defendant Livesey, acting in concert with the Defendant Union, and Defendant letter writers, orchestrated, authorized, approved and encouraged the conspiracy to protect Defendant Bailey and the conspiracy to adversely affect the Plaintiff’s employment through the inappropriate and improper investigation of the Plaintiff.”
  • “The Defendants acted in concert to prepare written statements about the Plaintiff depicting the Plaintiff in a false light and providing false information about the Plaintiff in an effort to adversely harm the Plaintiff in his employment and interefere with the Plaintiff’s employment rights”

Amended Complaint

Having a number of friends and former students on Attleboro FD, it strikes close to home to have these details play themselves out publically.  It is hard to fathom a firefighter suing such a large percentage of his co-workers – almost as hard as it is to fathom such a wide ranging conspiracy.

Captain Perkins is seeking compensatory damages and punitive damages, as well as costs and attorney fees. More on the story.

Posted in Civil Suit, Constitutional Rights, Disciplinary Action, Discrimination, First Amendment, Labor Law, Municipal Liability, Negligence, Promotions

Tagged , ,

Tennessee Facebook Rant Raises Same Old Questions

 

A Facebook rant by a Murfreesboro, Tennessee firefighter about a “homeless” woman has again raised the difficult question about First Amendment boundaries.

“So the sign says homeless, but she lives in the hotel behind her.  She checks in at 300 plus pounds (I know, because we transported it).  She gets food stamps and healthcare. Wondering what your [TennCare] and Medicare/Medicaid is being used for!  Tired of supporting it and others like it!  Disgusting!”

WKRN, Nashville News, Nashville Weather and Sports

Posted in Constitutional Rights, Disciplinary Action, Discrimination, First Amendment, Social Media

Tagged , , , ,

Virginia EMT Spared In Fatal Ambulance Accident

A Virginia EMT who was involved in a fatal ambulance accident in May has been found guilty of improper driving, but has avoided several more serious charges.

Justin Kidd, 25, was driving a Campbell County ambulance on May 3, 2012 when it collided with a vehicle driven by a retired Lynchburg firefighter, Dean Anders, 69. Andres died at the scene. The accident happened at an intersection controlled by a traffic light, and allegedly the ambulance was not using its red lights and siren while transporting a patient to the hospital.

Kidd was charged with reckless driving, and Anders’ family wanted him charged with involuntary manslaughter. However, the witnesses differed about who ran the red light. In the end, the judge found Kidd guilty only of improper driving and fined him $25. The case was decided this week in Lynchburg.WSET.com – ABC13

Posted in Apparatus, Criminal Law

Tagged , , , , , ,

Throwing Handlights At Passing Cars

Today’s burning question: We were at an emergency scene and a car came driving up really fast, totally disregarding our safety. I even shined my flashlight directly at the driver but he kept on coming. Out of frustration I threw my flashlight at him. I can’t get in trouble, can I?

Answer: It depends on whether you consider criminal charges and being liable for the damages getting in trouble.

On Monday, the fire chief of the Bennington Rural Fire Department, in Bennington, Vermont pled not guilty to misdemeanor counts of disorderly conduct and unlawful mischief arising out of an incident that occurred on June 3, 2012.

Chief Joseph T. Hayes, 43, was at the scene of arching wires and was attempting to ascertain the pole number when he claims a car driven Frederick Grant approached at a high rate of speed. The incident occurred at about 11:00 pm. The chief initially tried to shine the flashlight to get Grant to slow down, but when Grant continued the chief threw the light striking the front bumper of his car.

Grant claims he was unable to see Chief Hayes, who was not wearing PPE or anything reflective. He said his windshield wipers were on due to rain and mist causing his windshield to be streaked, and the glare from the headlights of parked vehicles made it hard for him to see. Grant claims he was in a line of cars that were all traveling 15 to 20 mph through the area.

Chief Hayes’ attorney, William T. Wright, claims he has witnesses to support the chief’s version of events. He said “It’s our belief that when their information is disclosed, it will put a very different light on what happened. A jury would have a very tough time convicting Chief Hayes. He was just doing his job as the fire chief.”

This case is interesting to me because it is not that uncommon a fact pattern. I have personally represented firefighters who have similarly thrown objects at arrogant, oblivious drivers, and have had to discipline firefighters for doing similar things. Whenever I discuss this factual scenario, invariably other firefighters recount similar experiences.

A few key points:

  • A firefighter who throws an object at a passing motorist or vehicle could be charged with assault  (battery if the vehicle is actually struck) because the vehicle is considered to be an extension of the persons in it (I know, I know but the cases go back to the 1700-1800s when someone would punch a horse because they were angry with the rider)…
  • Self-defense is only a defense if the facts indicate that the object was thrown in an effort to warn the driver, not out of frustration or retaliation…
  • I have seen firefighters convicted and required to pay damages BUT I have also seen drivers who realize they were wrong and apologize. A case in point:

My former boss, Fire Chief Alfred Bertoncini (ret.), told me a story about one of Providence’s most well known deputy assistant chiefs, Robert Weakley. When Chief Weakly was a lieutenant, and Chief Bertoncini was his driver (chauffeur in Providence parlance) they were responding to a house fire early one morning in one of my old companies, Engine 3. While enroute they approached a traditional milk delivery van (where the driver drove standing up). As they passed the milk truck the driver seemed to speed up, and then refused to pull over or stop. As the two vehicle proceeded down the street, the engine needed to take a right. Lt. Weakley tried to visually and verbally signal the milk truck driver to no avail, and in desperation threw his handlight out of the cab of Engine 3, crashing through the side door of the milk truck shattering the door and striking the driver.

Engine 3 proceeded to the fire with both men thinking their careers were over…  until later that morning when the owner of the dairy and the driver appeared sheepishly at their fire station wanting to know how much they owed for the handlight.

Now that is old school!

As for Mr. Grant, he wants Chief Hayes to pay approximately $1,000 for damages to his bumper.

More on the story.

Posted in Apparatus, Burning Question, Civil Suit, Criminal Law, Disciplinary Action, Historical, Humor, You Can't Make This Stuff Up

Tagged , , ,

Baltimore Firefighter Charged with Running Prostitution Ring

Sometimes a headline says it all. However, that is not true in this case. Believe it or not there is a more surprising fact: the arrest of a Baltimore city firefighter for running an online prostitution ring and unlicensed after-hours club in a warehouse is not his first, but rather is a repeat of something he had been arrested for previously and somehow kept his job.

In 2010, Firefighter Jamar Marvin Simmons, 29, was arrested  on sex trafficking charges when he delivered a prostitute to undercover police officers. The officers were responding to an online ad for sex. Simmons somehow managed to keep his job, received one year of supervised probation, and paid a $300 fine.

Yesterday, Simmons and 33-year-old Franklin Coit, were charged following a raid by the FBI’s Human Trafficking Safe Streets Task Force.  The task force was investigating an online prostitution ring operating out of a converted warehouse on South Pulaski Street.

Police seized drugs, a .40-caliber handgun, computers, condoms, sex toys, and ledgers showing the scope of the enterprise.

Baltimore city fire officials report that Simmons has now been suspended without pay.

More on the story.

 

Posted in Criminal Law, Disciplinary Action, Sexual misconduct, You Can't Make This Stuff Up

Tagged , ,

Canadian Sexual Harassment Case Dismissed

A sexual harassment suit brought by a female firefighter against her department and her union has been dismissed… sort of. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the suit, and that the matter rightfully belonged in binding arbitration.

The case is from Ontario, Canada and if the reasoning for the dismissal seems a bit strange that is because in the United States victims of civil rights violations (race, sex, disability, age discrimination, etc.) have an absolute right to have their claims heard in court. In fact, a collective bargaining agreement or a state law that tried to limit a victim’s access to the courts would be struck down.  

Firefighter Mary Herzog filed the suit on December 23, 2010 in Ontario Superior Court against the City of Windsor Fire & Rescue Department, several members of the department, and the Windsor Professional Fire Fighters Association. She was seeking $10,000,000 in damages for alleged emotional and sexual abuse, and an additional $2 million in punitive damages.

The case bogged down when Herzog’s lawyer withdrew from the suit, and Herzog was unable to secure a replacement.

In a ruling issued on May 7, 2012 that was previously unreported in the media, Superior Court Justice Thomas Carey concluded that “the collective agreement directs that all differences arising out of the plaintiff’s employment fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of an arbitrator to be settled by binding arbitration. This court has no overlapping jurisdiction…”

The matter came to the notice of the media when the city’s attorney placed the case on the city council’s agenda for discussion last evening. The issue for the council: should the city appeal the judge’s denial of an order to make Herzog pay the city’s defense costs of $26,500. In ruling not to assess Herzog defense costs, Judge Carey wrote:

The plaintiff is self-represented and receives disability pension. The material before me indicates that her physical and emotional health have deteriorated since her initial complaints. She relied upon her former solicitor for legal advice and given the settled nature of the law in this area was apparently poorly served. In the record before me, it seems she has not received moral or financial support from her Association. The material filed on consent supports that her complaints were not without some merit. The imposition of a costs order against her would be disproportionately punitive to her in all the circumstances.

The city’s lawyer, Mark Nazarewich, recommended that the city leave well enough alone. No word on the final decision.

Here is a copy of Nazarewich’s memo and court ruling:

More on the caseCity Attorneys Memo.

Posted in Civil Suit, Constitutional Rights, Discrimination, International, Labor Law, Municipal Liability, Politics, Sexual Harassment

Tagged , ,

Michigan Judge Orders Mayor to Accept SAFER Funding

 

Here is the court’s ruling: 99367055-Order-of-Mandamus-ruling-against-Mayor-Lamarand

Posted in Civil Suit, Municipal Liability, Politics, You Can't Make This Stuff Up

Tagged ,

Honolulu Ethics Panel Investigating Fire-EMS Merger Contract

Honolulu Ethics Panel Investigating Fire-EMS Merger Contract.

The Honolulu Ethics Commission has begun an investigation into the bid process used to select a consultant back in 2010 to help assist with the merger of the Honolulu Fire Department and the Honolulu Emergency Services Department.

The consultants/bidders were ranked by a matrix scoring system, and the allegation has been made that scores were changed so that Emergency Services Consulting International (ESCI), an affiliate of the International Association of Fire Chiefs, would receive the award. The total amount paid was $175,000.

The ethics complaint claims Fire Chief Kenneth Silva’s relationship with the IAFC may have played a role in what transpired.

Three evaluators were tasked with ranking the bidders by a numerical score. The scores were then tabulated. EMS Chief Patty Dukes gave Ralph Anderson and Associates 31 points, ECSI 26 points, and the other bidders 25 points.

Assistant Fire Chief Thomas Perkins gave ESCI 38 points and Ralph Anderson 35 points.

The third evaluation came from attorney Paul Au, from the city’s HR department. Au gave both companies 39 points. Based on those scores, Ralph Anderson appeared to have won, 105 to 103.

A few days later, Au was allegedly given his scoring sheet back and asked to pick between ESCI (supported by Chief Perkins) and Ralph Anderson (supported by Chief Duke). He downgraded Ralph Anderson to 36 points, giving Emergency Services Consulting International just enough to win, 103-102.

The article has the actual scoring matrixes used by the parties, and does a good job of laying out the issues.

 

Posted in administration-leadership, Conflicts of Interest, EMS, Ethics

Tagged , ,

Pittsburgh Captain Claims Withholding Severance Payout Violates First Amendment

A Pittsburgh fire captain who retired on June 1, 2012 has filed a lawsuit in Federal Court alleging the city wrongfully withheld payment of his accrued sick leave. How is that a Federal case? He claims the money was withheld in retaliation over him having exercised his 1st Amendment rights two days before while on duty.

David Cerminara, 56, filed suit yesterday alleging that the city and Public Safety Director Michael Huss were attempting to unlawfully punish him for comments he made to reporters on May 30, 2012 that were critical of the Pittsburgh Department of Public Works.

Captain Cerminara was on duty at the time and watched as one city crew painted lines on the roadway in front of his station. An hour later, a second crew came by and tore up the freshly painted surface in preparation for resurfacing. A news crew in the area covering the story asked Captain Cerminara what he had seen and he told them, including referring to the work as a waste of taxpayer funds. The news station then ran a humerous story about line painting/repaving incident.

When the story aired, it apparently angered city officials and prompted Public Safety Director Huss to order a disciplinary investigation of Captain Cerminara for having spoken to the media without permission.

Here is where the story gets kind of weird. Captain Cerminara retired June 1, 2012 at 08:00 hours. According to the lawsuit Huss rescinded Captain Cerminara’s retirement, and purported to order him to “remain on duty pending the outcome of a Trial Board hearing on June 21, 2012.”

In fact, according to the complaint, Huss himself went to Captain Cerminara’s house on June 1, 2012 at about 2:30 pm to personally deliver the order. According to the complaint: “When it was pointed out to Defendant Huss that he could not order a person who no longer worked for either him or the City of Pittsburgh to remain on duty, to attend a hearing, or indeed to not speak as a private citizen on a matter of public concern, he became enraged.”

The city and Huss have since refused to give Captain Cerminara his severance check, estimated to be approximately $20,000.

The lawsuit goes even a bit further and discusses a previous suit that Captain Cerminara filed against the department. In 2007, Captain Cerminara was suspended indefinitely without pay after he suffered a seizure. The department considered him to be medically unfit. He sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act and was reinstated with backpay. While the new lawsuit does not specifically allege retaliation over the prior lawsuit, the implication is clearly there.

Here is a copy of the 2007 ADA case. Cerminara ADA

Here is a copy of the suit filed yesterday.  Cerminara 1st Amend

This is the second story this week where disciplinary action has been taken against an on-duty firefighter for speaking to the media. Recall the DC case of Lt. Alvarado.

Once again we see the difficult questions associated with whether firefighters are speaking as “private citizens” – in which case they may have 1st Amendment protection, or whether firefighters are speaking as spokespersons for their fire department – in which case they do not. In between the two extremes of “private citizen” and “spokesperson” is a vast grey area… a 1st Amendment “no-man’s land”.

One tool we have to try to help sort through the 1st Amendment  quagmire is the Pickering Balancing Test… but even that test is not all that helpful in the private citizen-spokesperson dichotomy because it requires a determination that someone is speaking as a private citizen for it to even apply. Here is a concise restatement of Pickering Balancing Test:

If an employee is (1) speaking on a matter of public concern (2) as a private citizen, they must prove their interest “in commenting upon matters of public concern” outweighs the “interests of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees” in order to have 1st Amendment protection

And as I say at every opportunity – the Pickering Balancing Test a phenomenal test if you are a judge (in which case have the luxury to second guess everyone after the fact… who cares if no two judges can agree on the specifics of a given case) or if you are a law school professor (in which case you can create wonderful hypotheticals to dazzle your students)… but in terms of being a fire chief trying to establish reasonable boundaries, or the average firefighter trying to figure out where the boundaries are – the Pickering Balancing test is a huge disservice to us all.

More on the Cerminara case.

Posted in ADA, Civil Suit, Constitutional Rights, Disciplinary Action, Discrimination, First Amendment, Municipal Liability, Politics, You Can't Make This Stuff Up

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Texas Firefighter Charged With Taking Secret Bathroom Pics

A Texas firefighter has been indicted on charges that he used his smartphone camera to secretly take photos in a fire station bathroom.

Last Thursday, a Walker County grand jury returned a true bill against Christopher Alexander Clark, 31, on one count of violating Texas Penal Code Section § 21.15, Improper Photography or Video Recording.  Clark was a volunteer at the New Waverly Volunteer Fire Department, Walker County ESD#2.

The device was discovered by a female member on March 4, 2012 when she went into a fire station bathroom to change. She said she heard a snapping noise and noticed a smartphone on the floor near the toilet. The phone had an application running that caused it to take continuous photos.

Besides containing photos of the female victim, the smartphone also captured images of Clark placing the phone. The charge is a felony and Clark faces 2 years in jail and a $10,000 fine.

More on the story.

Posted in Criminal Law, Disciplinary Action, Sexual misconduct, Volunteers, You Can't Make This Stuff Up

Tagged , , , , ,

DCFEMS Poolfilling Investigation Launched

DC Fire & EMS is in the news yet again with a new scandal, the filling of a privately owned swimming pool by on-duty personnel during a storm emergency dubbed by Dave Statter as “Watergate”. Regardless of whether it is termed Watergate or Poolgate, the drama emanating from the Nation’s Capitol is truly astounding.

I hate to kick a man when he is down, so in deference to Chief Ellerbe I offer this without commentary.

DC Breaking Local News Weather Sports FOX 5 WTTG

Posted in Disciplinary Action, Labor Law, Politics, You Can't Make This Stuff Up

Tagged , , , ,