Firefighter Sues Claiming She was Demoted To Firefighter Because She Is A Mother

A female firefighter in a volunteer fire department in Pennsylvania has filed suit claiming she was demoted from her position as a lieutenant because she is a mother. Jessica Etzle filed suit against the Lower Swatara Fire Department in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

The suit alleges Etzle had been a lieutenant from January 2014 to January, 2016 when she was demoted to firefighter by Fire Chief Jason Brown who told her “’you have a six (6) year old son’ and … needed to be home and be a mother to her son.” Etzle claims after her demotion, a male firefighter was promoted to replace her.

The two-count suit contains one count of gender discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and one count of gender discrimination under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.

The Lower Swatara Fire Department’s web site states that it is a “100% volunteer department” and that it is a separate entity from Lower Swatara Township. The township is not named in the lawsuit, nor does the complaint describe exactly what type of entity (municipal, private non-profit, association) the Lower Swatara Fire Department is.

An initial challenge for Etzle’s federal court claims will be whether Title VII applies to volunteers. Title VII is intended to prohibit discrimination in employment. Volunteers are not regarded as employees for many purposes.

There is some case law suggesting that volunteers can be employees for purposes of Title VII, but the test is rather complicated (big surprise there). For the Legal Eagles, check out Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (1992), which adopted a thirteen-part common-law test for employees under Title VII, that includes a consideration of compensation and benefits. The Darden test was created to differentiate between employees and independent contractors, but courts have applied it to determine if a volunteer is an employee for Title VII purposes.

Not surprisingly the complaint is drafted to make it sound as if Etzle is an employee. Take a look:

• In September 2003, Plaintiff was hired as a Firefighter.
• Plaintiff was well qualified for the position and performed well.
• In January 2014, Defendant promoted Plaintiff to Lieutenant.
• Plaintiff was well qualified for the position and performed well.
• In May 2014, Defendant assigned Plaintiff fire prevention duties.
• These duties included, but were not limited to, conducting fire prevention work at schools and daycares, working in the “smoke house trailer” to teach children about fire prevention and administrative work.
• In early 2015, Justin Sheneult, Lieutenant resigned from his position.
• Sheneult’s resignation made Plaintiff the only Lieutenant at Defendant.
• This however this did not affect Plaintiff performing her job duties.
• On January 4, 2016, Plaintiff met with Jason Brown, Fire Chief, John Weikle, Assistant Fire Chief, and Ken Phillips, Deputy Fire Chief.
• Brown informed Plaintiff that she could not be a Lieutenant anymore because “you have a six (6) year old son” and she needed to be home and be a mother to her son.
• Weikle stated further that Plaintiff needed to be a mom instead of being in the fire station.
• Defendant demoted Plaintiff to the position of Firefighter.
• In addition, Defendant also took the fire prevention duties away from Plaintiff.
• Later that night on January 4, 2016, Defendant filled the two (2) open Lieutenant positions with Kevin and Chad Zimmerman.
• Upon information and belief, both Kevin and Chad Zimmerman have children.
• In February 2016, Plaintiff complained to Mr. Weikle about her demotion
• Weikle could not provide Plaintiff with a valid reason for her demotion and took no action to address Plaintiffs complaint.
• On April l, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC alleging gender discrimination.
• Later in April 2016, Plaintiff met with Michael McKillip, President, and complained about being demoted from Lieutenant because she was a mother and notified Mr. McKillip of Mr. Brown’s and Mr. Weikle’s comments during her demotion.
• McKillip informed Plaintiff that he would look into the matter and get back to her.
• However, Mr. McKillip did not contact Plaintiff following her complaint.
• In or arolmd June 2016, Defendant became aware of Plaintiffs filing with the EEOC.
• Defendant’s employees ignored Plaintiff and created an uncomfortable working environment for her.
• In or around July 2016, Plaintiff ceased reporting to Defendant due to the working environment.

There is no mention in the complaint about whether officers are elected or appointed, and if appointed for how long those appointments as for.

Here is a copy of the complaint: Etzle v Lower Swatara