Skip to content


First Amendment, Fire Scene Photos and Road Closures

 

Today’s burning question: I live in a rural area where it is common practice at vehicle accidents and fire scenes for the road leading to the scene to be shut down by fire police (members of the fire department who are peace officers). Because this is a rural area the road may be shut down a mile or more away from the incident so that traffic may be diverted onto an alternative routes.

Do fire police (or anyone for that matter) have the authority to stop someone from passing them for the purpose of photographing the incident in cases like this (they do not let the public through typically)? Would this be considered a legitimate exclusionary zone, considering the distance from the incident or would it violate the photographer’s First Amendment Rights?

Answer: Great question in light of our recent First Amendment discussions.

If the road is closed and traffic is diverted a mile from the scene, but local traffic is allowed to proceed past the fire police, then it would probably violate the photographer’s First Amendment Rights to exclude him/her from being allowed to proceed closer to the scene.

If the road is closed to ALL traffic (even local traffic) due to safety concerns – or even due to operational work zone concerns such as congestion, hose lines, tanker shuttle operations, etc., then photographers could be prevented from proceeding by vehicle. The fire police would not be able to stop them from parking outside the traffic exclusion zone and proceeding on foot, unless there is a safety issue or work zone concern.

Where a department could get themselves in trouble is if they use safety or the work zone exception as a pretext to exclude photographers, reporters, or even members of the public from covering a newsworthy event.  The First Amendment’s protections to extends to everyone, not just photographers or the media.

Posted in Burning Question, Constitutional Rights, First Amendment, Volunteers

Tagged , , , , , , ,

First Amendment and the Press’s Right to Take Photos

 

I received a question that was posted as a comment to one of the stories on firefighters interfering with the public’s right to cover news worthy events. I have paraphrased what was asked… and turned it into today’s burning question:

Is safety a legitimate reason to exclude the press from parts of an emergency scene? Excluding the public, yes, but I don't think safety should be grounds for excluding the press. According to all of the PIO classes I have attended safety cannot be used as a reason to exclude press. PIO's are being told that the only exclusions allowed for the press (leaving out the question of "who is the press") are (1) private property (trespass), (2) interference (reasonable work zone) and (3) exclusion from a crime scene.

Not that I don’t believe you, but is there a statutory provision or case law that you are using when you tell us we can exclude the press because of safety concerns?

Answer: It sounds to me like members of the press may have been involved in teaching your PIO classes, which is entirely understandable. They have an invaluable perspective to share with the fire service – and we need to listen. However, along with that perspective comes a certain bias in favor of the media that the law does not share.

So let me get this straight: according to these “instructors” we cannot deny the press access to a location based on safety concerns? Seriously? That means I could be advancing a hose line into a structure and have a news camera team along side of me? I cannot order them to stay outside? Or entering a hazmat hotzone in level A we might find a cameraman sauntering in? And we’d have to rely on the crime scene or work zone exclusion? I’m not even sure we can enforce the trespass exclusion – that is up to the property owner.  What if the property owner gives the news team permission to trespass?  Seriously? Your instructors told you we cannot stop the press over safety concerns?

Let’s assume your “instructors” are correct (they are not but play along). The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear – the right to film and cover the news is not limited to the media – it extends to everyone … EVERYONE… so if we have to allow the media to go somewhere that is unsafe… then the public has the same right…  an 18 year old with an iPhone camera has the exact same rights to cover the news as a fully credentialed NBC news team.

OK… enough of the fun stuff… let’s get to the law. The issue is really cut and dried. We can establish and enforce a safety zone for both the public and the press. In Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972) the US Supreme Court said “the First Amendment does not guarantee the press a constitutional right of special access to information not available to the public generally.” In other words, the press’s right of access is no greater that the public’s right of access.  That means if we can deny the public access to a certain area out of concern for the public safety, we can deny it to the press as well.

If you are following this discussion… you will notice another interesting question is raised: if we give the press access to a scene (think the TV show COPS), then can any 18 year old with an iPhone demand the same access??? …. The answer to that is going to have to wait til next time.

Posted in Burning Question, Constitutional Rights, Discrimination, First Amendment, Occupational Safety & Health, Politics, Social Media

Tagged , , , , ,

Overtime, Straight Time, or No Time

Today’s burning question: My fire department works a three shift schedule on a 12 day pay cycle. We work four complete 24 hour tours during this time for a total of 96 hours. We get paid overtime for anything over 91 hours per FLSA. This means there is a built in 5 hours of overtime each pay cycle.

The problem is if we use a vacation or sick day during a given cycle, we get charged for 24 hours of sick or vacation time, but only get paid the 91 hour salary. In other words, we lose the 5 hours of overtime we otherwise would have received.

Our contract acknowledges that we lose our built in OT upon using any sick or vacation time, but I don’t think we should get charged the full 24 hours of sick or vacation time and only paid for 91 hours. Is this legal for them to do this?

Answer: This is a complicated one.

Let’s start with the basics: Before a firefighter is entitled to overtime under the FLSA, he/she must work 53 hours per week, or 212 hours in a 28 day period. The department must designate a pay period that is between 7 and 28 days, so your department can lawfully select a 12 day cycle. The correct maximum hour figure for a 12 day cycle is 91 hours.

The bad news: The FLSA does not require an employer to give you sick or vacation time. If your employer chooses to give you such time… well… I suppose the FLSA considers it a bonus.

Under the FLSA an employer only has to include the hours you actually work when determining if you are entitled to overtime. Sick leave or vacation time do not count toward hours worked. As such if you do not actually work the maximum hours  required (91 minimum to be eligible for overtime) – they do not have to pay you overtime for any combined work-sick-vacation hours that exceed 91 UNLESS your hours actually worked exceed 91.

Now – that is the law under the FLSA – but it is only part of the equation.

If your CBA were to authorize 5 hours of overtime per 12 day period whether you worked 96 hours or not, then contractually you would be entitled to the OT even though the FLSA would not require it… However, as you indicated your CBA seems to acknowledge the practice. But just what does the CBA acknowledge? Is it simply that you will not receive OT? What about the 5 hours?

That is the bigger question. Are you (a) getting shorted on your pay in that you should get 96 hours of straight time when you use a sick or vacation day OR (b) should you only be charged 19 hours of sick/vacation time for the first sick or vacation day used each week?

Without seeing the actual CBA language and researching past case law interpreting similar provisions – it is hard to draw a firm conclusion.  What is clear is that the issue is not an FLSA question, but rather is contractual in nature. As such it will likely require a grievance to resolve. The department may argue the existence of a past practice of only paying  91 hours – even though your hours worked plus sick leave used equals 96 hours – but it would appear that you have a good faith argument that you are being shorted one way or the other.

IMHO they should either be paying you 96 hours of straight time when you use a sick or vacation day OR they should only charge you 19 hours for sick or vacation time.

Certainly if any of the other Legal Eagles out there care to weigh in – I’d appreciate it. Am I missing something?

Posted in Burning Question, FLSA, Wage and Hour

Tagged , , ,

Part Time Full Time Distinction

Today’s burning question: I am a part-time firefighter. What is the maximum number of hours that I can work without being considered full-time or entitled to the same benefits of the full-time firefighters? I am not concerned about qualifying for benefits I just want to know how many hours I can work.

Answer: There is no universal answer to your question. Every work place will have its own rules/definition on who is full-time and who is part-time – and there are many other jurisdictional issues to considerations: state laws, civil service regulations, collective bargaining agreements, local charters, local ordinances, perhaps even agreements with benefit providers. Each of these may/will affect the definition of part-time and full-time.

Some employers have an overriding concern about part time employees unionizing – so they want to keep hours low, irregular and contingent (note – there is no universal number of hours that part-time employees must work to be eligible to unionize).  Other employers want to avoid having to pay full-time benefits, overtime, or allow employees to qualify for tenured civil service positions.  

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly referred to as  Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act, was signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010.

Employers of more than fifty full-time employees must offer their full-time employees affordable health care, or pay a penalty. For purposes of the PPACA, a full time employee is defined as one who works at least thirty (30) hours per week.

To know for sure how many hours is considered to be full-time in your situation you would need to check with a local attorney who can research all of the issues affecting your particular department.

In regards to part-time firefighters, here is a ruling that was issued recently in the state of Maine granting part-time per diem firefighters the right to join the same bargaining unit as full time firefighters in Westbook. Westbrook Per-Diem Findings

Posted in At will employment, Burning Question, Labor Law

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Family Ties and Chain of Command

Here is today’s burning question: I have been volunteering with a small rural fire district for about 11 years. I was promoted to lieutenant by the previous chief, but since he left 7 years ago I have had nothing but trouble with the new chief. I won’t bother you with the details, but my problem is this: My wife joined the department last summer. Last week out of the blue my chief told me that although she is allowed to volunteer, she is not allowed to respond to incidents where I play a supervisory role! I make about 60% of all of calls and was hoping this would allow my wife and I to spend more time together.  Now she can only respond to calls that I cannot make. Is it legal to deny someone to volunteer based on marital status / family relationships?

Answer: You need to get some local legal advice. To fully answer your question an attorney will need to look at your state laws, perhaps local ordinances, fire district regulations, fire department rules and regulations, etc. In addition, whether your department is a municipal entity (fire district) or a volunteer fire company funded by a fire district could make a huge difference. Without knowing all of that – any advice I could give you would be half-baked at best.

I agree, given your strained relationship with the chief, it sounds like he may be using your martial status as a way to harass you – but there may be a valid reason for it as well – such as nepotism laws that prohibit a person from reporting to an immediate family member. Most of those nepotism laws apply to paid employees, and you did not indicate if you are paid on call, or fully volunteer. Again the devil will be in the details.

You would be completely within your rights to ask the chief for some additional information on the martial status rule, such as when the rule was adopted and what it was based on (state law, local ethics commission ruling, attorney’s advice, etc.). If he is bluffing, these questions may be a way to smoke him out. On the other hand if he is sincere, acting on advice of counsel and trying to do the right thing it offers a way that you can be assured he is not out to make your life difficult.  You would also be within your rights to ask that the rule be put in writing  (if it has not yet been) to make sure it is applied to everyone equally.

Posted in Burning Question, Conflicts of Interest, Ethics, Volunteers

Tagged ,

Armed Firefighters – The Debate Continues… Again

Today’s Burning Question: In our city we have the luxury of a police force nearby, however, just like us they are increasingly busy. Many times we wait a significant amount of time for an officer to arrive on a scene that may or may not be violent but the potential is there, so we stage. Also while I have never been shot at I have had many patients who turned violent after our arrival. That being said, I would not be comfortable with just any or all of our FF/EMTs carrying a weapon. Perhaps the answer is a few well trained supervisors that are armed and can be there to have the backs of their crews, allowing them to focus on patient care without the worry of a weapon being taken from them while providing care.

Another thought I haven’t seen much comment on is the possibility of non-leathal weapons (tasers). What do think?

Answer: We have discussed this issue numerous times over the years – and recent events have not changed my approach one bit.  I am not opposed to arming personnel but like any high risk activity we engage in – if we are going to do it, we have to do it right. The cost of doing it right may make it prohibitive for most departments but that should not be used as an excuse to do it wrong… half-assed… or recklessly.

Your suggestion about arming a few well trained supervisors may be a viable option in some jurisdictions. In a similar vein a number of state USAR teams deploy with their own force protection unit – complete with AR-15s and I think that is a terrific idea (having been the beneficiary of force protection from Georgia’s GA TF01 (GSAR) and Nashville’s TN TF02 during our deployment to Mississippi following Hurricane Katrina).

The challenge with armed supervisors – will they be there when you need them?

As for non-lethal weapons… I do not believe we should be discussing arming anyone without considering the entire force continuum that includes non-lethal weapons. Allowing folks to be armed without giving them a non-lethal option (equipment and training) is as good as telling them how you expect them to handle a dangerous situation. Even a lousy lawyer can make that case a slam dunk in the event a firefighter/medic were to use a firearm against someone.

For more on our previous discussions click here…  and here.

FYI – this question was posted on January 3, 2013 on one of the old threads from 2011 and it is of such import that it is worth reposting here!!!!

Posted in Burning Question, Occupational Safety & Health, Politics

Tagged , , ,

A Simple Workers Comp Question With No Simple Answer

Today’s Burning Question: We have an employee who was injured in 1995 and needed surgery on his hip at that time. He just recently went in for a complete hip replacement. The city is not contesting that the second surgery relates to the original injury. The question is should he be paid at his compensation rate when he was originally injured in 1995 because that is when the injury occurred, or the rate he currently makes?

Answer: Well, I originally thought this would be a simple question with a simple answer…. but no… This has to be one of those “its depends” answers that I hate but so often have to give.

First of all, I am not a workers comp specialist. Let that be known and I would encourage any comp lawyers out there to offer their considered opinions.

Second – not all firefighters fall under workers comp for work related injury coverage, and those that do need to keep in mind that comp law will vary greatly from state to state.

Under workers comp law (governed by state law) the critical date for determining the compensation rate of an injured employee will either be the date of injury or the date of disability. In most cases they are one in the same but on occasion (like here) they are not. States differ in how they handle a case like this with some looking to the date of disability (ie. his wages today in 2013 … IMHO the wiser rule) and some looking to the date of injury (1995 … probably implemented by the pre-Christmas Eve Scrooge).

If your state looks to the date of disability, then the simple answer is they will look at his wages as they currently are (most likely averaged over the last 52 weeks he worked).

If your state looks to the date of injury, it would potentially be the average of the 52 weeks prior to the injury… BUT…all hope is not lost. Take a look at this indepth article on determining compensation rates in North Carolina. It will give you a flavor for just how many issues come into play… and how complicated a final answer will be.

mathofwc

For those not inclined to dig into the article – NC is a date of injury state – and the author cites at least five different methods for determining the appropriate compensation rate, most notably:

Method #5: If “exceptional circumstances” exist that would make application of

Methods #1, #2, #3, or #4 unfair, either to the injured worker or the employer, then some other method that would as nearly as possible approximate what the injured worker would have been earning but for the injury may be used.

Thus, even in a state that uses the date of injury to calculate the comp rate, there may be a way to ensure the firefighter is fairly compensated. The bottom line – get your injured firefighter a good comp lawyer ASAP!!!

One last followup question… are you sure the most recent hip injury wasn’t due to an all new work related injury?

Posted in Burning Question, Workers Compensation

Tagged , , ,

FDNY Facing ADA Challenge By Desk Bound EMT

Today’s burning question: I am an EMT and hurt my wrist on the job in 1997. In 2001 after two surgeries I needed an accommodation and asked to be assigned to a job “that would not require large volume typing, lifting, or straining.” The department gave me a desk job but in 2010 they eliminated my position. Then when we could not agree on another position, they terminated me. Don’t they have to continue to accommodate my disability?

Answer: If your job is to work as an EMT on an ambulance, they probably do not have to continue to accommodate you with a light duty assignment. HOWEVER… there may be another question: is your job still an EMT??? Or have you been employed in that “light duty” position for so long that you now have a different set of essential functions to qualify for?

 

A female EMT has filed suit against FDNY claiming her termination in 2010 violated the Americans with Disabilities Act because the department failed to continue to accommodate her for a wrist injury that occurred back in 1997.

EMT Kimberly Perez was injured while caring for a patient in 1997. In 2001 she requested an accommodation on account of her disability and was reassigned to EMS dispatch. Later she was assigned to the Ambulance Call Report Unit, and in 2004 she was assigned to the Recruitment Unit.

In 2010 her Recruitment Unit position was eliminated. She was offered at least 9 other positions, each of which she claimed she could not perform. As a result she was terminated because she was “unable to perform the duties of her position … by reason of a service related medical condition”.

Perez filed suit on December 14, 2012 in US District Court for the Eastern District of New York claiming  she had been discriminated against on account of her disability. Here is a copy of the complaint. Perez v FDNY

 

As for the law…the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the new and improved Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA) protect employees with a disability who are qualified to perform the essential functions of a position. Under the ADAAA an employer is required to make a reasonable accommodation IF that accommodation would allow a disabled employee to successfully perform the essential functions of a job.

This is where Perez’s case starts to go sideways. Granting her a desk job for nine years does not appear to have helped her find her way back to an ambulance (ie. the long-term accommodation has not allowed her to be able to perform the essential functions of being an EMT for FDNY), so it is unlikely that the continuation of a desk job would be considered a “reasonable accommodation”. In order to be eligible for ADA protection an employee must be able to perform the essential functions of the job with (or without) the reasonable accommodation. Her insistence that she be accommodated by being placed in a light duty position would seem to contradict the very predicate she needs to demand a reasonable accommodation.

The ADA does not a guarantee a pay-check-for-life for a disabled employee who can no longer perform a job. A light duty assignment MAY BE a reasonable accommodation in some circumstances – but there is also a great deal of confusion over this issue. The bottom line is an employer does not have to create a new position to accommodate an employee with a disability.

But here is the trap for employers. By allowing long term light duty assignments an employer can inadvertently end up creating new positions with different essential functions… essential functions that are considerably more lenient than the requirements of the employee’s original position. Reading the complaint it does not appear that Perez is specifically alleging liability under this sort of theory but the complaint is drafted in fairly general terms that may be sufficient to use that theory if her original theory fails. To avoid this trap, employers need to think through the implications of light duty assignments, develop clear policies, and follow them!

The discussion of light duty as a reasonable accommodation under the ADAAA becomes even more complicated because of other laws that intersect, including the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), civil service laws, workers compensation laws, collective bargaining agreements, and even public employee pension laws. It can create a mind-boggling quagmire for employers, employees, unions and lawyers alike.

One final point about the Perez complaint from a legal perspective: the complaint does not allege that she is a qualified person with a disability who can perform the essential functions of the job. Without that predicate, the case cannot go far under the ADAAA. The complaint does allege violations of New York state and local laws – and perhaps those laws offer greater protection… but without a Federal cause of action the case may be looking at an early exit from Federal court.

 

Posted in ADA, Burning Question, Civil Suit, Discrimination, EMS, FMLA, Labor Law, Municipal Liability

Tagged , ,

Compensation for On Call Time

Today’s Burning Question: I work for a combination department. We have paid staff from 0700 to midnight, supplemented by volunteers. Our chief assigns the paid staff to be on call three times a month from midnight to 0700 time period. We are paid only if there is a call. Would this violate the FLSA since we are not free do what we want during those hours?

Answer:  The FLSA, or Fair Labor Standards Act, requires that paid employees (full-time or part-time) be compensated for all hours worked. On-call time is generally not considered to be hours worked unless the restrictions placed upon the employee are so restrictive that the employee cannot engage is his/her our pursuits.

Both Fire Officer’s Legal Handbook and Legal Considerations for Fire and Emergency Services  address this topic – and provide a much more detailed discussion of this issue, but the bottom line is: if a fire department imposes so many restrictions on an employee’s “on-call” time that the time ceases to be their own, then the employee must be compensated as if they were working. Some of the factors to be considered are:

  • Do the on-call restrictions require an employee to be immediately available (eg. respond to the scene within 10-15 minutes), or merely available within 1-2 hours;
  • Is the consequence of not responding merely a missed overtime opportunity or can the employee be disciplined;
  • Do the on-call situations occur so frequently that the employee cannot plan to engage in his/her own pursuits (ie. do call outs occur with such frequency that it is impossible to plan personal activities, or do they occur less frequently);
  • When an on-call situation occurs, how burdensome is it? (Note: Firefighters who have to respond to an emergency would be on the more burdensome end of the scale compared with, say, an IT person who may merely have to return a phone call, and then can return to his/her normal activities.)

Minor inconveniences (eg. no drinking while on-call) would generally not cause an on-call situation to become so burdensome as to require compensation.  The focus is on whether the employee can generally utilize those on-call hours for his/her own benefit.  If so, then the employee does not have to be paid for them. If not, the on-call hours are considered to be hours worked and are compensable.

Like many things in the law, at each extreme the outcome is usually clear…. but in between there is an enormous gray area.

PS – in followup to yesterday’s post… I looked through the 2012 cases again at length today and could not find another precedent setting case worth discussing… most disappointing.

Posted in Burning Question, FLSA, Wage and Hour

Tagged , ,

Disabled Firefighter Wins Pension Battle on Technicality

Today’s Burning Question: In 2002 I was granted a disability pension for a back injury I sustained on the job. In 2010 the pension board began trying to revoke my pension under a law that allows them to terminate it if they can prove I have “recovered”. The board’s doctor claims I am a faker and their case hinges on his testimony that I was never hurt. So here is my question: if the doctor testifies that I was never hurt, isn’t that different than saying I have recovered?

Answer: According to the Illinois Appellate Court, testimony that a firefighter was never injured is not testimony that a firefighter has recovered – and as a result the disability pension of a firefighter that was revoked based upon such testimony must be reinstated.

That counter intuitive ruling was handed down on November 21, 2012 in the case of Hoffman v. Orland Firefighters’ Pension Board.

Eric Hoffman was granted a disability pension in 2002, and his disability was confirmed again in 2005 following a medical review. In 2009 the pension board sent Hoffman for additional medical exams prompting Dr. Martin Lanoff to conclude that he had never been injured.

Based on Dr. Lanoff’s testimony, the pension board ruled in June, 2010 that Hoffman had recovered and voted to terminate his pension. That prompted Hoffman to file suit. The trial court ruled in favor of Hoffman, and the board appealed.

In deciding the case, the appellate court looked at the language of the Illinois Pension Code, 40 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq. that allows a pension board to terminate a disability “[u]pon satisfactory proof to the board that a firefighter on the disability pension has recovered from disability.”

The court concluded that medical testimony that a firefighter was never injured is not the same as testimony that a disabled firefighter has recovered. In the court’s own words “the Code [does not] authorize a board to conclude that a pensioner has recovered from the disabling injury based solely on medical evidence that the firefighter was never actually disabled”.

The court also noted that the Pension Code did not provide a mechanism for the pension board to revisit the initial question of whether or not a pension was properly granted. In the court’s mind, allowing the board to use the doctor’s testimony in this case would essentially create a way to revisit the granting of a pension without lawful authority.

Here is a copy of the decision. no disability v. recovered from

If an appeal is filed, it would be to the Illinois Supreme Court.

As for the long term implications of the decision – about the only thing it would appear to accomplish (aside from protecting Eric Hoffman’s pension) is it tells doctors in such cases to stay on script when testifying. If the issue is whether the pensioner has “recovered”, don’t embellish by adding your opinion about things beyond the scope of what is necessary…. IMHO…. of course….

Posted in Burning Question, Civil Suit, Line of Duty, Pensions, Workers Compensation

Tagged ,

Architect Facing Manslaughter for LAFD LODD

Today’s Burning Question: I was responsible for installing an outdoor fireplace at house in Hollywood that was going to be used in a television show and…. well… we took some shortcuts in how we built it. The biggest issue was that it was made out of wood and we kind of didn’t tell the local building officials. So then there was this fire and a firefighter died. Could I get in trouble? After all, the fire was an accident, wasn’t it?

Answer: The fire may have been an accident, but if your conduct in installing the wooden fireplace was reckless, you may find yourself facing involuntary manslaughter charges.

A German architect, Gerhard Becker, is facing involuntary manslaughter charges for his role in installing a wooden outdoor fireplace that sparked a major fire in Hollywood Hills on February 16, 2011 that claimed the life of LA firefighter Glenn Allen.

The LA Times has a great piece on the fire and the case. My point with this posting is to remind everyone about the relevant grounds for manslaughter, and the importance of understanding the mental state of recklessness.

Let’s face it – what we do carries with it the risk of death at every turn. We are not like librarians or school teacher or accountants. People are killed and injured and property is damaged even on a good day at the office for us. When a death occurs, manslaughter is potentially on the table.

Essentially “recklessness” is a criminal mental state that involves acting with conscious disregard for a known and substantial risk of harm. When someone acts with recklessness, and that act is the proximate cause of a death, he/she has committed involuntary manslaughter.

Thus in the LA case, if the prosecutors can convince a jury that Becker consciously disregarded a known and substantial risk of harm by installing the wooden fire place AND that the installation was the proximate cause of FF Allen’s death, he could be convicted of involuntary manslaughter.

More on the story.

Posted in Burning Question, Criminal Law, LODD, Manslaughter, Negligence, You Can't Make This Stuff Up

Tagged , , ,

Hurricane Evacuation Orders and Liability

Today’s burning question: If someone refuses to follow an evacuation order made because a hurricane is approaching, can we be liable if we later refuse to respond to their distress calls in the middle of the storm because they changed their minds?

Answer: Probably not. I would like to say categorically no, but it is possible an unusual case could arise if responders do not act in good faith. Short of bad faith, gross negligence, or recklessness, it is unlikely that responders could be held liable for not responding during a hurricane. Let’s look at the issues in more detail.

The first challenge that a non-evacuee would have in suing responders would be to prove that the responders were somehow negligent for not responding. In other words, the non-evacuees would have to prove the reasonably prudent emergency responders have responded under the circumstances. The non-evacuees are not likely to win there because the reasonably prudent responder would not respond during the middle of a hurricane.

The second challenge the non-evacuees would have to prove is that the emergency responders have a legal duty to respond. Even in the absence of a declared emergency, many jurisdictions adopt what is known as the public duty doctrine which holds that public entities do not owe a legal duty to the general public, be it to respond to fires, emergencies, or deliver other types of governmental services. There are of course exceptions (most notably when a “special duty” is created – but that would not be the case here) and not all states adopt the public duty doctrine.

Even if the non-evacuees got by those hurtles, there would be the challenge of sovereign immunity and statutory immunity protection that many emergency responders have.

But let’s assume that a non-evacuee got past all of those liability hurtles. Is there any other protection that emergency responders have to protect them in such a situation?

As a matter of fact there is, and it would be the proverbial “ace in the hole”. States have adopted emergency management acts that give state and local officials extra powers in times of emergencies. These acts usually go into effect when the governor declares a state of emergency. Among the things that happen when a governor declares a state of emergency is that immunity protection is applied in a blanket manner to all responders.

Take a look at Rhode Island’s law:

RIGL  § 30-15-15  Immunity from liability – (a) All functions under this chapter and all other activities relating to disaster response are hereby declared to be governmental functions. Neither the state nor any political subdivision thereof nor other agencies of the state or political subdivision thereof, nor, except in cases in willful misconduct, gross negligence, or bad faith, any disaster response worker complying with or reasonably attempting to comply with this chapter, or any order, rule, or regulation promulgated pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, or pursuant to any ordinance relating to precautionary measures enacted by any political subdivision of the state, shall be liable for the death of or injury to persons, or for damage to property, as a result of disaster response activity.

Immunity protection under such emergency conditions makes alot of sense. Decisions have to be made in disaster situations: who will be saved, who cannot be saved, who will get critical limited resources and who will not. Laws such as RIGL  § 30-15-15  provide a clear level of liability protection for emergency managers and responders alike to make those necessary decisions without fear of liability.

Supplementing state emergency management laws are another set of laws enacted by all fifty states called the Emergency Management Assistance Compact or EMAC. EMAC is essentially a state to state mutual aid agreement for disasters. EMAC also provides for immunity protection for responders and state and local officials:

§ 30-15.9-6  Liability. – officers or employees of a party state rendering aid in another state pursuant to this compact shall be considered agents of the requesting state for tort liability and immunity purposes; and no party state or its officers or employees rendering aid in another state pursuant to this compact shall be liable on account of any act or omission in good faith on the part of such forces while so engaged or on account of the maintenance or use of any equipment or supplies in connection therewith. Good faith in this article shall not include willful misconduct, gross negligence or recklessness.

When you consider the liability protection afforded to state and local officials in a declared emergency, rest assured you are on solid legal ground to tell folks who are contemplating staying in place despite an evacuation order: You need to leave now and if you choose not to, we will not come back in the middle of the storm if you change your mind.

For the legal eagles out there, there are a few other defenses….

  1. Lack of proximate cause (the proximate cause for their injuries was the storm and/or their decision not to evacuate)
  2. Contributory negligence
  3. Assumption of the risk

Can you think of any others?

Posted in Burning Question, Duty to Act, Immunity, Municipal Liability, Negligence

Tagged , , , ,

Helmets and My Stupid Idiotic Chief

Today’s burning questions (yes its plural): Part I: My chief is a complete and total stupid idiot. He refuses to issue me and the other guys that came on with me in my training academy new helmets despite the fact that (1) we have been on the job for 11 years; (2) we have never been issued replacement helmets; (3) NFPA standards require that the helmets be replaced after 10 years; and best of all (4) we know that he knows he is supposed to replace the helmets at the 10 year mark because the moron replaced our turnout gear (coats and pants) just before our 10th anniversary. What can we do?

Part II: My chief is a complete and total stupid idiot. He is insisting that we replace perfectly good fire helmets – helmets that there is absolutely nothing wrong with – just because they are 10 years old. Like everyone else we are struggling for funding and this moron wants to squander money replacing helmets. What can we do?

Answer: I’m staying out of this one. By the way, did you hear what’s going on in FDNY?

Posted in Burning Question, Humor, Occupational Safety & Health, You Can't Make This Stuff Up

Tagged , , ,

Video Recording on EMS Units

Today’s burning question:  My fire department is installing video cameras on each ambulance, covering both inside the cab and box, and outside as well. Is this is legal? I think the administration is merely trying to spy on us and I also wonder about patient confidentiality.

Answer: Interesting question and one that police departments confronted years ago. Let me start off by saying that cameras have caught more than a few police officers doing bad things. In the big picture, is that a good thing or bad thing? I think we’d all agree that it is a good thing. So wouldn’t we be a bit hypocritical to use a different set of standards when it comes to ourselves?

Perhaps the bigger point to consider with regard to law enforcement and videos is – as much as cameras have captured some police officers acting improperly – they have caught way more bad guys acting improperly… including many who try lie about it and accuse the officers of misconduct. By far, most police officers now believe in dash cams and most can recite story after story where officers have been exonerated from allegations of wrongdoing by virtue of video surveillance.

But your question was not about whether video cameras were a good idea or bad idea… right? Your question was about the “legality” of video surveillance.

There are a number of issues that can arise when an employer decides to use video surveillance in the workplace. Arguably it is a change in working conditions that in a union environment must be negotiated. Some states (Connecticut) require advanced written notice to employees before an employer can engage in any form of electronic surveillance in the workplace.

In an EMS environment there are also patient privacy and medical confidentiality issues. Confidentiality issues can be addressed by ensuring that videos are properly secured and that personnel do not violate confidentiality by improperly accesses, viewing or disseminating them. In most respects managing the videos would be no different than how we manage patient information in our run reports.

The bigger legal question is privacy. In this regard states differ tremendously.

There are two sets of concerns: audio and video.

In regards to audio, it is illegal for someone to secretly record a conversation they are not a party to. This principle holds true in all 50 states.

While employees can be required in advance to consent to audio recording as a condition of employment (assuming any collective bargaining hurtles are successfully cleared), the same cannot be required of patients and third parties. Therefore, to the extent that the video cameras record audio and capture conversations between parties who have not consented, the recordings may violate state law. Most states require the consent of at least one party to a conversation for it to be recorded, and 12 states require the consent of all parties.  The consent issue can be addressed in most states by placing warning signs cautioning others that they are being recorded – but it needs to be thoroughly researched on a state level… and it is not a perfect solution.

In regards to recording video, there are a number of states that prohibit the use of cameras in certain areas. Some states limit photo and/or video recording in areas such as bathrooms, changing rooms, locker rooms, bedrooms, and patient treatment areas. Other states refer to any location where people have an “expectation of privacy”. The back of an ambulance could be one such place where a patient believes he/she has an expectation of privacy. Again, it is important to know your state laws.

In terms of a overcoming a patient’s expectation of privacy in the back of an ambulance, that can be addressed through the proper placement of signs, similar to the way we would address audio recording.  However, with regard to signs there remains the issue of language barriers, folks who cannot read, and the blind…. Lots to think about!

So the bottom line is – there are a few legal issues that need to be addressed in order to put video cameras on EMS units.  Using cameras that record both audio and video raises a few more issues than cameras that record video only, but in either event it is probably doable in most jurisdictions if done right.

Posted in Apparatus, Burning Question, Confidentiality, Constitutional Rights, EMS

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Central Coventry Fire District Facing Receivership

One of the larger fire districts in Rhode Island has announced plans to file for receivership. The Central Coventry Fire District, which operates five stations and covers roughly 26 square miles, announced yesterday that it is completely out of money.

The district has been in financial distress but was pushed over the edge following a vote by taxpayers on October 1, 2012 to table passage of a new 2012-2013 budget. That move halted the distribution of tax bills to residents of the district.

The district sought an extension of its line of credit until a new budget could be approved, but when that was declined by the bank the district was out of options.

Here is more on the story.

Over the past day, many folks have asked me to explain what a receivership is, and how it differs from bankruptcy. That gives us two burning questions: 

What is receivership?

A receivership is a legal proceeding where a court is asked to appoint a “receiver” to take custody of property, assets, or a business in order to protect, preserve, and if necessary liquidate it. Receiverships are often used for troubled businesses that are unable to pay their bills and more recently have been used to aid municipalities on the brink of bankruptcy.

In a receivership, the “receiver” is appointed to oversee and manage the property or business. The receiver works for the court and must report back to the court with a plan to resolve outstanding debts. In the process the receiver works with various creditors to reach an acceptable resolution of outstanding debts and related issues.  In the mean time the court retains jurisdiction over the assets and property involved. This prevents creditors from seizing assets without court approval – which in the case of a fire department would prevent creditors from seizing fire trucks and equipment.

Receiverships may be established under both state and federal law, depending upon the jurisdictional issues in the case. Municipal insolvencies are typically handled under state law.

Is receivership the same as bankruptcy?

No. While both bankruptcies and receiverships commonly involve parties who cannot pay their bills, they are quite different. First of all, bankruptcy is governed by federal law and trumps virtually all other types of legal proceedings. Once bankruptcy is filed, all other civil proceedings involving the debtor (the entity being placed into bankruptcy) are stayed and most creditors will have to refile their claims with the bankruptcy court who then has jurisdiction over the claim. That does not happen in receivership.

Bankruptcy courts also have broad discretion to force creditors to accept a settlement of their claims, whereas receivers have considerably less latitude to force a settlement.

At the end of bankruptcy, all of the debts of the debtor are discharged (with very few exceptions that we won’t go into here). That is not that case under a receivership where any debts that were owed remain on the books. Thus after a receivership a creditor can continue to pursue a debtor although as a practical matter that is often not worthwhile because the debtor has no assets from which to collect.

Here is a web site that can provide additional details – and certainly any receivership or bankruptcy attorneys out there – feel free to correct me on any of the details. Its been a while since I took Bankruptcy in law school.

Posted in Burning Question, Municipal Liability

Tagged , , , ,

Armed Firefighters and Medics Again is Debated

Today’s burning question: I keep reading that fire departments around the country are contemplating allowing their EMS crews to carry guns.  I was wondering what your opinion is on the legality of this?

Answer: This seems to be the burning question from Lazarus… it just keeps coming back to life.

We actually discussed armed firefighters and medics not that long ago. Click here for Armed Firefighters – the Debate Continues.  

Without repeating everything said previously my position is pretty simple: I don’t think it is wise – but it is not illegal to allow firefighters/medics to be armed.

My biggest point remains: If a department is going to do it, they need to do it right. That means the department needs a well thought-out and well written policy along with an appropriate level of training before personnel are allowed to carry on-duty.

Simply allowing any/every employee with a carry permit to carry on-duty is IMHO crazy. The previous post addresses my concerns… but to summarize – the training must address issues beyond simple firearms proficiencies. The training needs to include simulator practice on issues like shoot don’t shoot scenarios, safety considerations of down range innocents, the use of force continuum (we do not want shooting to be the first and only option we condone that our employee use), and probably the most important issue: employees need training on maintaining control of their weapon… as in what do you do when you are carrying a stretcher and someone grabs for your gun.

Guns in the workplace have implications even for those who do not intend to carry. Co-workers need training on firearms safety in the event the armed member is injured/disabled and someone needs to take possession of the weapon (probably an area we should be providing training anyway).

If a department can address all of these issues then my concerns are addressed. What do you think?

Posted in Burning Question, EMS

Tagged , , ,

Med Control, Consent, and Implied Consent

Today’s burning question comes from a friend who is a nurse and is studying for her paramedic license. She took issue with an exam question, which is paraphrased here as follows:

You are called to the residence of a 77 year old woman, whose private physician believes she has had a stroke and needs to be transported to the ER. When you arrive, she is looking around the house for her cat and will not engage in conversation about transport. Her family insists that she be transported. Who has the authority to order transport without her consent?

  • a.      Her son
  • b.      Her physician
  • c.      Medical Control
  • d.      Her sister in law

My friend chose answer (a) her son, and was marked wrong. The “correct” answer was (c) Medical Control. The instructor said that since EMS is all delegated practice, Medical Control is “God” and can order anything.

 

Answer: I believe (c) is the least incorrect answer… which I suppose then makes it the most correct answer – but having said that I am not convinced that (c) is correct. In fact if the question was a true or false question to the effect:  Medical Control can order the treatment and transport of a patient without their consent, or even Medical Control’s permission is required to treat and transport the patient in this scenario based on the circumstances described, the correct answer would probably be false (I’ll leave myself some wiggle room in case there is some strange law in some state that does in fact elevate Medical Control to a God-like status).

Neither the son, nor the doctor of the patient, nor Medical Control can order the treatment or transport of a competent adult patient. Only the patient can consent.

Upon assessing the patient, if the patient is found to lack the capacity to consent, and an EMS provider concludes the patient needs treatment and transportation – then the provider has implied consent to treat and transport her. The EMS provider does not need Medical Control to have that authority.

Of course if there is an advanced directive such a living will or durable power of attorney for health care decisions that delegates medical decision-making to a certain family member, that would also come into play.

In summary, Medical Control has no more right to authorize you to transport than you already have via implied consent. Admittedly medical control may help you determine whether the patient lacks capacity and/or needs medical attention – so may the son (“she is not acting like she normally does”) and so may her doctor (“I think she has had a stroke”). But at the end of the day, if you determine the patient lacks capacity and needs transport – you have implied consent… all by your lonesome…. without med control.

Others with thoughts …. Please chime in!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted in Burning Question, Duty to Act, EMS, patient-management

Tagged , , , ,

War Crimes, The Hague and Fire Law… You Never Know

Have you ever started reading your email before you fully wake up? That was me this morning when I opened an email from a gentleman informing me that my name came up during a war crimes trial at the Hague last month. I rubbed my eyes, stood up and headed back to the kitchen for another cup of coffee.

Seriously? Can’t be. Must be a joke. What could I possibly have done… I mean I know I have had to take a hard stand against a few guys during my career – but war crimes? I never struck anyone… yes I have yelled, lost my temper… but war crimes? Yes I do like guns and like to shoot…. but war crimes? At the Hague?

Back at my computer I followed a link the man provided (with more than a little skepticism I might add), and soon I was reading the transcript from the trial of Serbian General Ratco Mladic. Then on page 1806 of the transcript – there it was… my name.

What became apparent was that not only was my name mentioned, but my biography, employment history and expertise had been discussed in open court, and attorneys at the Hague then argued over whether one of my articles should be admitted into evidence or not.

Relieved but intrigued… it still didn’t make sense. Was this a dream? Or maybe a prank? No, it was one of those “you can’t make this stuff up” moments… happening me to – the owner of www.youcantmakethisstuffup.net!

The email I received this morning was from a man named John Jordan, a firefighter from Bristol, Rhode Island. You may recall that John was a driving force behind an effort to help firefighters in Sarajevo during the civil war back in the 1990s. It had been so long that I did not make the connection between John and Sarajevo when I first received his email – but as time went on my recollection returned. [Note: The Fire Critic mentioned John in a post a few years ago and posted a video about his exploits - for those interested in John's heroic work].

Last month John was a witness at the war crimes trial of General Mladic being held at the Hague. On cross examination by General Mladic’s attorney, he was asked questions about whether firefighters should be armed, and the risks posed. He was then confronted with what I wrote here on Fire Law Blog about armed firefighters.

Apparently the general’s defense attorney was seeking to use my words to suggest that it was unwise for firefighters in Sarajevo to have been armed, and that by arming themselves they made themselves legitimate targets. Here is how John responded to the question:

THE WITNESS:  With all due respect to Chief Varone, the casualties on the Sarajevo fire department from gun-fire and shelling exceeded 20 per cent of the department, one man in five, before we started addressing the issue of snipers.  They — they lost no one after we started protecting them to gun-fire at fires.  That would be my answer to Mr. Varone.

Folks, for the record – our discussion here in Fire Law Blog about armed firefighters pertained to domestic, peacetime arming of firefighters and paramedics. What was occurring in Sarajevo back in the 1990s was a totally different scenario and I would not even pretend to suggest that what works here in peace time would be wise in the middle of a vicious civil war.

The testimony is available online at http://www.icty.org/x/cases/mladic/trans/en/120828ED.htm

It was given on August 28, 2012 and begins on page 1806 of the transcript.

John – my hat remains off to you for all you have done for the firefighters of Sarajevo – and the brotherhood of firefighters world-wide.

Posted in Burning Question, Criminal Law, Weekend Rant, You Can't Make This Stuff Up

Tagged , , , ,

Is Clicking Like Really Saying Anything?

I received a very timely and thought provoking question for today’s burning question: Is clicking “Like” to a Facebook post making a public statement sufficient to get someone in trouble?

I should probably start by asking – who do I represent, the accused “Liker” or the person who is upset with the fact that “Like” was clicked? But lets not go there. We will cover it straight down the middle. I’d also like to rewrite the question – because phrases such as “public statement” and “get someone in trouble” are pretty ambiguous. We will work through those too.

Before we answer the question, let’s consider the timeliness and the context of this question. Two cases in particular have raised a number of concerns in recent months. The first case involved the Hampton, Virginia sheriff who terminated several of his employee because they clicked “Like” on his opponent’s Facebook page.  

A more recent case that broke earlier this week involved Columbus, Mississippi firefighter Brad Alexander. He was apparently forced to resign over comments he posted on Facebook about the whereabouts of the mother of a 2 year old who was struck by an auto. Associated with that posting two firefighters and a police officer from Columbus (firefighters Damon Estes and Erik Minga and police officer Lance Luckey) were given 30 day suspensions for “liking” Alexander’s post.

With these cases as the background, let’s consider the answer to this seemingly simple question. To answer it, we need to recognize that there are actually several sub-questions within the question.

First Question – is clicking “Like” really the making a “public statement”? My answer is yes, most definitely. It is a statement, or more precisely an exercise of speech. It is public. Therefore clicking “Like” is a form of public speech. IMHO as a form of public speech it therefore triggers protections under the First Amendment… or at least what is left of the First Amendment these days… but that is another story. If clicking “Like” was not a form of speech it would have no First Amendment protection.

Second Question – should someone get in trouble for clicking “Like”?

That actually begs a Third Question: what exactly does it mean when someone clicks “Like”? For example, my friend’s father died recently and he posted an obituary on Facebook. Like many folks I clicked “Like”. Does that mean I like the fact that my friend’s father died?  That I liked my friend’s father? That I like my friend? That I support my friend and his family during their time of grief? That I like the prose used in the obituary?

Different people can draw different conclusions from a “Like”. Could someone be offended that I clicked “Like” for an obituary believing that I stepped over some imagined boundary of etiquette? Is that my problem, or theirs? I suppose if the offended person is my boss it becomes my problem. 

What emerges from this Third Question is that clicking “Like” can be ambiguous, to say the least. It can also mean different things to different people. Now back to the Second Question: should someone get in trouble for clicking “Like”.

As an initial matter, under the Constitution, government cannot infringe upon the First Amendment rights of citizens, including public employees. Hence, to the extent that a public employee makes a public statement (free speech) that is entitled to First Amendment protection, the employee cannot be disciplined… by his/her employer. That doesn’t prevent people (co-workers, bosses, and maybe the public) from being uphappy with what is said, but the employee cannot be disciplined or retaliated against by the governmental employer.

Is upsetting your boss and coworkers “getting someone in trouble”? If it is, then clicking “Like” can indeed get you in trouble and no amount of fancy legal arguments will help you there. However, if your definition of trouble is being formally disciplined, then whether or not you are in trouble depends on whether or not your speech has First Amendment protection.

Rather than restate what I have already written on the First Amendment, here is a link to a prior posting. Let’s just say there’s alot of ambiguity these days when it comes to applying the First Amendment in real life. In fact judges can’t even agree so I seriously doubt the rest of us will fare much better.

The short version: for a public employee to have First Amendment protection for an exercise of speech that is related to his or her employment, they must be speaking as a private citizen on a matter of public concern AND pass the God-awful Pickering Balancing Test that requires that the employee’s interests in speaking outweigh the employer’s needs to limit his/her speech. Don’t fall asleep on me now…. we’re almost done….

One of the biggest hurtles here for an employee is the “matter of public concern” test. Can clicking “Like” to a Facebook posting be considered a commentary on a “matter of public concern”? How does one prove that? Obviously it will depend in large measure upon on the nature of initial comment. It may also depend upon the intent of the “Liker” – which as we have seen can be ambiguous and may give rise to differing interpretations.

There is another little issue that has no clear answer at this point: What protections do public employees have when their speech is not work related? What happens when someone clicks “Like” to a post that has absolutely no connection to one’s employment?

Traditional First Amendment law looked upon such statements as being entitled to greater protections under the First Amendment than speech that is related to one’s employment. However, the distinction often gets blurred – particularly when someone engages in speech that calls into question their fitness to be a public employee, or insults the very people that the employee is hired to protect and serve. Let me quote from a recent Federal case so we get the lingo right: “[t]he First Amendment does not require a Government employer to sit idly by while its employees insult those they are hired to serve and protect.” Locurto v. Giuliani, 447 F.3d 159, 183 (2d Cir. 2006).

So what if a public employee clicks “Like” to a comment that has no relationship to his employment, but the comment is racially offensive?

 

To summarize this long and winding rant – the question should probably be restated as: is clicking “Like” on Facebook an exercise in free speech subject to the same protections offered by the First Amendment to other forms of speech? The simple answer would then be: Yes. Clicking “Like” puts one squarely in the same First Amendment quagmire that we all are faced with day in and day out. It’s no different.

Oh… and then there is the issue of the inadvertent “Like”……

Posted in Burning Question, Constitutional Rights, Disciplinary Action, First Amendment, Politics, Social Media

Tagged , , ,

Six PA Firefighters Suspended for Life

Today’s burning question: Please select the most likely response:

Six members of a Pennsylvania volunteer fire company, including the chief, have been “suspended for life” by the company’s trustees, and escorted from the monthly meeting by the police for:

a.      Committing arson

b.      Theft of large sums from the fire company

c.      Responding to a fire while intoxicated

d.      Conducting a fundraising event without permission

Answer: You guessed it… it is d. ….. Six members of the Blaine Hill Volunteer Fire Company including fire chief Brian Mason were suspended for life by the trustees over fundraising without permission. The suspended include Fire Captain Steve Trumpe, Deputy Chief Rick Lewis, Lt. Kevin Tennant and firefighters Mike Trumpe and Lisa Charleston.

Following the suspensions, the company’s vice president John Reese and secretary Dawn Reese resigned.

The suspensions are just the latest round in an ongoing dispute between the members and the trustees. They were handed down last Monday evening, where not only were the six members suspended, but they were unceremoniously escorted from the meeting by police. The event at the heart of the controversy was a fundraising fair that trustees claim was not authorized.

Chief Mason, was quoted on TribLive saying “I’m fighting it. We’re all fighting it.. I’ve been a fireman 22 years and I’ve never been through stupid (stuff) like this.” He also insists that the fundraising was approved at a meeting.

More on the story.

 

 

Posted in Burning Question, Disciplinary Action, Politics, Volunteers, You Can't Make This Stuff Up

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 , , , , ,

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

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 , , ,

Nebraska Supreme Court Rules on Fill the Boot Case

Today’s Burning Question: Is it illegal for firefighters to collect money for a charity during their on-duty hours?

Answer: In Nebraska it is now illegal for on-duty firefighters to collect money for charities such as the MDA… well… at least that is what some of the headlines say. But is that what the court really said?

The real answer is somewhat complicated – because the case is somewhat complicated - so please bear with me.

The story began in 2009 when the Omaha City Council (playing the role of Scrooge in Scene I) passed an ordinance that prohibited on-duty city employees (namely the firefighters… playing the role of Bob Cratchit) from soliciting money from the public for charitable causes like the Muscular Dystrophy Association (playing the role of Tiny Tim).

The council then sought an advisory opinion from the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission declaring the practice of firefighters soliciting funds for charities such as the “Fill-The-Boot Drive” for the MDA to be illegal. The Commission (Scrooge in Scene II) obliged, ruling that such fundraising violated Nebraska Revised Statutes § 49-14,101.01, which states

A public official or public employee shall not use or authorize the use of personnel, resources, property or funds under his or her official care and control other than in accordance with prescribed constitutional, statutory and regulatory procedures…

Here is the Commission’s ruling, issued on March 12, 2010

In anticipation of the annual Labor Day Jerry Lewis Telethon for MDA, the Nebraska Professional Firefighters Association filed suit on August 19, 2010 in Lancaster County District Court to challenge the Commission’s advisory opinion, and order it to be withdrawn. The District Court (Scrooge in Scene III) dismissed the case finding it lacked jurisdiction, and the Nebraska Court of Appeals (Scrooge in Scene IV) affirmed on slightly different grounds. The case went to the Nebraska Supreme Court who issued their ruling last Friday.

Here is a copy: Nebraska Fill the Boot Case

The court essentially concluded that while the District Court and Court of Appeals were right that the Firefighters had to lose, they were not entirely right with their reasoning. The real grounds for the Firefighters to lose was that an advisory opinion was not a “final decision”, and only final decisions can be appealed. Said another way – the Firefighters had not exhausted their administrative remedies. They had the opportunity to challenge the advisory opinion before the Commission. Only after the Commission had ruled on their specific challenge would there be a final decision from which the Firefighters could lawfully appeal.

So where does that leave firefighters in Nebraska who want to help Jerry’s Kids? While the headlines indicate that the Nebraska Supreme Court was the biggest Scrooge of all, if you read the case it certainly is not as bad as many make it sound. The Nebraska Supreme Court did not “outlaw” fill-the-boot drives – it just ruled that the advisory opinion needs to be challenged via a different route. The Firefighters can make that challenge directly to the Commission if they so choose. They just cannot contest an advisory opinion in court.

In the meantime, Jerry Lewis has cut back substantially in the telethon. In 2011 for the first time he turned over the reins to others to host and the show was trimmed back from over 20 hours down to 6.

Posted in Burning Question, Civil Suit, Conflicts of Interest, Ethics, Labor Law, Politics, You Can't Make This Stuff Up

Tagged , , , ,

Is It Cheating If Everyone Does It?

Today’s Burning Question: Is it cheating if everyone does it? I mean, if everyone taking an exam looks at the answer key, or helps each other then that can’t be cheating, right? It would only be cheating if a certain “select few” people cheated.

Answer: How did we reach this point… where the boundaries between right and wrong, fair and unfair, cheating and playing by the rules – become so… blurry.

Like a number of fire departments that have had to confront the quagmire of “what is cheating”, the Largo Fire Department in Largo, Florida is struggling with where to draw the line. An additional question to the already difficult challenge about where to draw the line  – is when should the line be drawn? Is it fair to draw a line at a given point in time by punishing offenders who did something that their peers before them had done… or should the new boundaries be clearly established first and implemented prospectively?

Five Largo firefighters were suspended without pay last month following an internal investigation into cheating on a promotional examination for a “squad driver” position. The suspensions ranged from 8 to 40 hours and cost the members as much as $680. According to the department, the members violated city policy by sharing too much information about the test. They are accused of sharing a copy of an old exam and discussing questions with those who had already taken the exam.

Fire Chief Mike Wallace thought the matter was closed when the five accepted their suspensions, and opted not to appeal. However, the firefighters union decided to grieve the discipline and what’s more – voted to reimburse the members for their lost wages out of union funds.

Chief Wallace was quoted in the Tampa Bay Times as saying “I’m disappointed…. This creates a sense of undermining the department’s authority over the employees … We’re trying to change a culture that says that’s acceptable.”

Union president Dale Rosko counters that the members did what others before then had always done, ”exercising a practice of sharing information that has been acceptable, allowed and even promoted by current and former fire administrations.” Members were ”never properly noticed of any change in regards to the testing procedure or that [their] actions were no longer allowable.”

Here is more on the Largo story.

And here is the White Paper on Reputation Management in the Fire Service: whitepaper

Posted in Burning Question, Cheating, Disciplinary Action, Labor Law, Politics, Promotions

Tagged ,