Skip to content


Facebook Arbitration Begins for Miami Dade Captain

It has been a long wait, but Miami Dade Fire Captain Brian Beckmann finally had his day in court… or more correctly his day before an arbitrator… to review his Facebook related demotion.

Last spring, Captain Beckmann posted a comment that sparked outrage in the community still raw from the tragic shooting incident of a young African American, Trevon Martin, in Sanford, Florida. Amidst demands for his termination, Captain Beckmann was demoted back to firefighter.

The arbitration began on January 14, 2013 and is expected to continue on February 5, 2103. Some interesting facts came out at the first hearing, raising some pretty tough questions.

First of all, Captain Beckmann’s comments were posted on his personal Facebook page while he was off duty using his home computer. At the time he was not identifiable as a member of the department.  Can/should a firefighter be disciplined for comments posted in such a manner?

Second, the comments, while offensive, do not specifically reference or denigrate any minority group. Here is the text of his comments: ”I and my co-workers could rewrite the book on whether our urban youths are victims of racist profiling or products of their failed, (expletive), ignorant, pathetic, welfare dependent excuses for parents.” The lack of a direct reference to any minority group directly contradicts much that has been written about the case that refers to the remarks as blatantly racist.

Third, the comments were posted in such a way that they were only visible to roughly 300 of Captain Beckmann’s friends. The comments only became widely known after another firefighter took a screen shot of them and forwarded them on to a blogger who then publicizing them in an inflammatory way.

One would think based on these facts, that the firefighter who caused the posting to go viral should at least bear some responsibility for what happened. Captain Beckmann’s attorney, Matthew J. Mierzwa, Jr., made that very point to the arbitrator, laying the blame at the foot Captain Faye Davis. “We believe that the issue really arose here because of other employees, Faye Davis in particular, taking that herself in violation of county policy to publish it throughout the community. This is Faye Davis’ manipulation.” Captain Davis has not been disciplined for her role in the event.

The First Amendment aspects of this case are of enormous importance. To date, the US Supreme Court’s analysis of public employees’ right to free speech has been anything but coherent.

On the one hand are the numerous Court pronouncements that public employees do not surrender their basic First Amendment Rights by virtue of their employment, nor are they subject to a “watered down” version of protection. But all too often the end result of the cases belies the rhetoric.

Some of the First Amendment issues that are in play in Captain Beckmann’s case:

Was his speech work related or non-work related. Generally a public employee’s First Amendment Rights are the broadest when discussing matters unrelated to work. Arguments can be made both ways in Captain Beckmann’s case. There are cases that say that public employees do not have the right to “insult those they are hired to serve and protect.” Locurto v. Giuliani, 447 F.3d 159, 183 (2d Cir. 2006). Insulting the people you work for can take a case that would otherwise be non-work related and place it back under the realm of being work related.

There are also cases that say that the reason we have a First Amendment is to protect people who say things that will offend people (ie. we don’t need a First Amendment to protect people from saying things everyone agrees with).  Consider this: “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). Isn’t punishing Brian Beckmann for saying what he said essentially telling him what is orthodox? …. Hard questions….

Then there is the question of whether his comments pertained to a matter of public concern. Some will argue yes, the cause of the shooting,  problems with urban youth, racial profiling, etc. all are matters of public concern even if you disagree with his conclusion. Others will say no, racism or racial insensitivity has no place in public discourse… and should not be given protection under the First Amendment.

Next is the issue of whether Captain Beckmann made the comments as a private citizen. No doubt the captain believes he spoke as a private citizen when he posted his comments, but we have seen other cases where courts have found grounds to conclude otherwise on even less. See San Diego v. John Roe, 543 U.S. 77 (2004), and Locurto.

And then… if we get that far… we have the test of all tests… the Pickering Balancing Test. Stated as succinctly as humanly possible, that test states: If an employee is (1) speaking on a matter of public concern (2) as a private citizen, he must prove his 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”. Got that? Clear as… mud…

And then there is the role of Captain Davis. Is an employee who is offended by a private comment made by a co-worker, who proceeds to make that comment widely known (in this case to millions of people), entitled to protection by the First Amendment? If so, how can Captain Beckmann be denied that same protection?

Are you starting see the problem we are facing with public employees and the First Amendment? Given the emerging role of social media and the internet – this First Amendment quagmire needs to be addressed. We are not living in the 1800s where someone needs to take out a newspaper ad in order to reach hundreds to thousands of people… nor the mid 1900s where someone would have to take out a television ad to reach thousands to millions. This is the age of the internet and anyone can instantly reach millions just by clicking “send”… or pressing “enter” on a keyboard. The law needs to catch up with the technology.

Captain Beckmann’s case may the be one to help us get some closure from the courts on some of these open questions… It almost makes me hope the arbitrator rules against him so the case can move forward through the courts…. but that would not be fair to Captain Beckmann.

More on the story.

Posted in Constitutional Rights, Disciplinary Action, Discrimination, First Amendment, Labor Law, Social Media, You Can't Make This Stuff Up

Tagged , , , , ,

Denver Race Discrimination Case Closer to Trial

A Denver fire lieutenant who claims he has been subjected to race discrimination and retaliation since 2006 will finally have his day in court.

US District Court Judge R. Brooke Jackson ruled on January 2, 2013 that Lieutenant Thomas R. Lewis has presented enough evidence to get his case to a jury. Lt. Lewis claims that beginning in 2006 he has been harassed and retaliated against on the basis of race, and that it culminated his demotion from the rank of lieutenant. He also complains that he was punished with a transfer, and subjected to a malicious criminal prosecution.

According to the complaint: “At all times material hereto, Mr. Lewis satisfactorily performed his job duties, including receiving a commendation in December 2006.” His problems began in 2006 when he stood up to a white assistant chief on behalf of another African American firefighter who was wrongly denied an assignment despite being senior. He claims the chief threatened “to look into pursuing disciplinary actions against” Lt. Lewis.

Lt. Lewis alleges that the chief then falsely and without justification accused him of shoving a white subordinate firefighter. When those charges proved unfounded the same chief falsely accusing him of “engaging in intimidating, threatening, or hostile behaviors, physical assaults, or other acts of this nature”.  Lt. Lewis received a written reprimand ostensibly because he sang a pop song in the station.

Lt. Lewis filed a discrimination and retaliation complaint with the EEOC and then filed suit against the department and the white chief on January 5, 2009.

According to a Denver based employment blog, the very next day, January 6, 2009, Lt. Lewis was wrongly transferred and demoted. Shortly thereafter he was accused of engaging in a verbal altercation with an employee of a Verizon store. The department initiated an investigation which Lt. Lewis claims unlawfully resulted in criminal charges being filed against him, charges that were later dropped.

The blog continues:

Mr. Lewis appears to have strong evidence of unlawful employment practices by the Denver Fire Department. It appears that the Denver Fire Department subjected Mr. Lewis to retaliation soon after complaining about race discrimination, and then went out of its way to falsify evidence in a sustained effort to procure Mr. Lewis’s criminal conviction for a crime it knew that he did not commit. We applaud Mr. Lewis’s determined efforts to overcome the largely infinite resources of the government in order to have his day in court.

Here is a copy of the complaint. Lewis Complaint

Complaints typically present a one sided version of the allegations, as do some blogs from time to time. Fortunately in this case we also have a court ruling that lays out the facts a bit more objectively. Here are some of the details that the complaint conveniently omitted (italics is quoted material):

  • Prior to 2006 Mr. Lewis had several disciplinary complaints. He was late to work and received a 12 hour suspension. In 2001 Mr. Lewis was seen entering a residence that was known by Denver police to be a crack cocaine house. After leaving the house Mr. Lewis was pulled over by Denver police for failing to stop at a stop sign. At the time, Mr. Lewis was driving a vehicle owned by the Denver Fire Department, and he did not have a driver’s license. There was also some speculation as to whether Mr. Lewis had been drinking. Mr. Lewis was not cited by the Denver police officers, but the incident was reported to the Denver Fire Department. Mr. Lewis received an 80 hour suspension from the Manager of Safety.
  • The transfer on January 6, 2009 was necessitated in order to separate Lt. Lewis from the accused chief, who was named as a defendant in the suit.
  • On February 13, 2009 Mr. Lewis, while off duty, was involved in an altercation with a Verizon store employee. During the altercation, the Verizon employee, Todd Strong, asked Mr. Lewis what he did, and Mr. Lewis responded that he worked for Denver Fire Department. Mr. Strong sent an email to the Denver Fire Department requesting an apology from Mr. Lewis and the Denver Fire Department. The facts of what occurred during the altercation are disputed by the parties. The next day, February 14, 2009, Mr. Lewis came to the fire station agitated and yelling. …Mr. Lewis [was placed] on administrative leave and informed … that the Denver Fire Department’s internal affairs office would investigate the complaint from Mr. Strong.
  • After the investigation, Deputy Chief King determined that Mr. Lewis should be demoted.
  • [T]he Notice of Final Disciplinary Action… explained that the Verizon incident showed a pattern of “being rude to, intimidating and threatening people.” [It] cited that over the past four years at least six firefighters requested transfers from being under Mr. Lewis’s supervision because of his behavior towards them.

Here is a copy of the court’s ruling from January 2, 2013. Lewis Order

So it appears that we have a some facts in contention – facts that a simple reading of the complaint would not otherwise indicate. A quick search of the US District Court docket for the state of Colorado also shows that Lt. Lewis filed a civil suit against Mr. Strong and Verizon for race discrimination. That case was dismissed in 2010 following a ruling that granted the defendants summary judgment.

One final note for the legal eagles out there: you may note from the complaint that Lt. Lewis’s attorney filed suit as a civil rights action against the Denver Fire Department. For those who slept through Civil Procedure and Federal Courts: “After Monell courts have dismissed § 1983 claims that have sought to impose liability directly upon municipal and county departments rather than the municipalities themselves. … The City and County of Denver, not the Denver Fire Department, is the proper defendant under § 1983. Accordingly, summary judgment is granted for the Denver Fire Department.”

Ouch… but the case against the individual defendants continues.

And a final note for even the non-legal eagles out there: taking a case like this to trial can easily run into the tens of thousands of dollars… perhaps even over $100,000… for each side. Then there is the uncertainty of how a jury will view the facts. It is why cases often settle on the eve of trial.

We know that race discrimination continues to rear it ugly head and when it is found to occur, it needs to be addressed. We also know it is easy to play the race card.  In Lewis v. Denver FD, it would appear to be one or the other – and maybe this case is one that needs to go all the way in order to give both sides some measure of closure.

Posted in Civil Suit, Constitutional Rights, Criminal Law, Disciplinary Action, Discrimination, Municipal Liability

Tagged , , ,

Minneapolis Captain Prevails in First Amendment Demotion Suit

A Minneapolis deputy chief who was demoted to captain for criticizing the department’s former fire chief, gained vindication yesterday when a Federal court jury awarded her  $420,000.

Former Deputy Chief (now Captain) Jean Kidd, 53, claimed that her 2009 demotion was because of  the responses she gave to a 360 degree leadership survey that she was asked to complete about then-Fire Chief Alex Jackson.

According to Chief Kidd’s attorney, John Klassen “She honestly answered that he had strengths and honestly criticized his weaknesses, which were lack of vision, lack of business knowledge, failure to plan.”  Chief Jackson allegedly received the results of the survey on June 19, 2009 and demoted Chief Kidd on June 30.

Chief Jackson’s publicly stated reason for the demotion was that Chief Kidd  “was detrimental to the chemistry of his team,” and that he did not want team members who were unhappy and unable to get along with others. Chief Kidd sued claiming the demotion was in retaliation for the exercise of her First Amendment rights.

What appears to have been a pretty insurmountable obstacle in the case for Chief Jackson was explaining how on June 18, 2009, just one day before he received the results of the survey and twelve days before her demoted her, he signed off on a “glowing” job review of Chief Kidd that citing her for her interpersonal skills and ability to get along with co-workers.

That opened the door for Klassen to argue to the jury “what happened during the 12 days after that review to get the chief to do a 180 on his assessment?”

Apparently the jury did not buy Chief Jackson’s explanation, and returned a $420,000 verdict for Chief Kidd. The verdict included $90,000 for economic losses associated with the demotion, $30,000 for emotional distress and $300,000 in punitive damages.

Minneapolis City Attorney Susan Segal was quoted by the Minneapolis Star Tribune that she was “disappointed” by the jury’s decision. “We continue to believe that our former chief acted in good faith.”

Good faith or not, those who have been following recent First Amendment case law know that employees such as Chief Kidd have not fared well in cases such as this when they are not clearly speaking as a “private citizen” about a matter of public concern. No doubt, that issue will figure prominently in the city’s appeal plans. It is probably what Segal was referring to when she told reporters “There are some legal issues with the verdict that we are reviewing and we may decide to bring before court some post trial motions.”

Incidentally, Chief Kidd was a runner up for the fire chief’s job in 2007 when Chief Jackson was appointed. Chief Jackson retired last February amidst a great deal of criticism from the city council.

No word on whether Chief Kidd will get her rank back. She has said she plans to retire next year. More on the story. 

Also – here is an order entered last August in the case that discusses the facts and the First Amendment issues. I have to admit that my understanding of the First Amendment rights of public employees is a lot closer to that of the trial judge, Susan Richard Nelson, than what we have been seeing from the US Supreme Court or many of the circuits in recent years.  Kidd v Jackson

Posted in Civil Suit, Constitutional Rights, Disciplinary Action, First Amendment, Municipal Liability

Tagged , , , ,

Four Disciplined in NC For Sexual Misconduct

Two North Carolina firefighters have been terminated and two others disciplined in the wake of an investigation into sexual misconduct. The discipline comes a year after three other employees were fired from the same department, the Salisbury Fire Department, for sexual misconduct.

Fire Engineer Tim Grisham and Fire Control Specialist Chet Hedrick were terminated, Captain Shawn McBride was demoted to Engineer, and Fire Control Specialist II Jeremy Carter was demoted to Fire Control Specialist I. Both McBride and Carter were suspended as well, McBride for five 24 hour shifts and Carter for three.

According to WBTV.com each member received a letter, which the station quotes as follows:

Tim Grisham’s letter states: 

Misconduct: Sexual Activity while at work

“Employee advised supervisor that he was involved in inappropriate conduct while at work. Employee also shared inappropriate photo with other staff members.”

Sexual Harassment

“All employees are prohibited from any conduct that is sexually harassing or which may create an offensive work environment.

Employee admitted to supervisor and another employee that he had been involved in an inappropriate relationship.”

Misconduct: Truthfulness

“When asked about the relationship employee was not truthful with the Fire Chief.”

The letter to Grisham goes on to state previous disciplinary action was taken against him in October 2011, and at that time he was told any future disciplinary action could lead to dismissal.

The letter to Chet Hedrick states:

Misconduct: Sexual Activity while at work

“Employee received inappropriate pictures and shared with other staff members. This was the second incident of misconduct. The previous incident occurred in January 2011 at which time you were suspended.”

Sexual Harassment: Reporting Procedures

“Employees are required to report information immediately to the Department Chief. 

Employee failed to report information he had related to a potential inappropriate relationship that could have resulted in a sexual harassment claim.”

Misconduct: Truthfulness

“When asked about the photo you received you stated you were not sure about the identity of the person and that was why you did not inform your superiors of the situation. While interviewing another staff member later they confirmed that you shared the photo with them and knew the identity of the person in the photo.”The letter to 

Shawn McBride states:

Sexual Harassment: Reporting Procedures
“All employees are prohibited from any conduct that is sexually harassing or which may create an offensive work environment.

Supervisor failed to report potential inappropriate activity that could have resulted in a sexual harassment claim.

As a result, you will be demoted to Engineer with a reduction in pay. You will also be suspended for five 24-hour shifts as of November 29, 2012.”

The letter to Jeremy Carter states:

Misconduct: Sexual Activity

“Employee received inappropriate picture and failed to report the activity of sharing the inappropriate photo at work.”

Sexual Harassment: Reporting Procedures

“All employees are prohibited from any conduct that is sexually harassing or which may create an offensive work environment.

Employee failed to report potential inappropriate activity that could have resulted in a sexual harassment claim.

As a result, your position as Firefighter II will be demoted to a Firefighter I with a reduction in pay. You will also be suspended for three 24-hour shifts as of November 29, 2012.”

UPDATE: The Salisbury Post is also reporting that FF Carter, who was previously said to have been suspended and demoted, has been terminated as well. The Post is also reporting that the investigation remains ongoing.

Posted in Disciplinary Action, Sexual misconduct

Tagged , , , ,

CalFire Engineer Contests Demotion Over Red Light Camera Gesture

Today’s burning question: I am an engineer… well, I was an engineer. Anyway, I was going through an intersection that had a red light camera and we had our red lights and siren going and I knew the camera was going to take our picture, so I gave them a “two thumbs up” gesture. My department demoted me back to firefighter. Can they get away with that? Oh, and I was driving kind of fast at the time… the camera said it was something like 60 miles per hour… but the other cars were all stopped.

Answer:  Son, if you worked for me – you and your officer would both be demoted – and he’d likely be facing a stiffer penalty than you would.  Nevertheless, CalFire firefighter Patrick O’Donoghue is challenging his July, 2011 demotion from engineer. He is accused of gesturing to a red light camera with both hands off the wheel. The engine he was driving was going 60 mph at the time. The case is pending before an administrative law judge from the state personnel board.

O’Donoghue’s attorney, David J. Givot, did not dispute his client used poor judgment, but argued that the penalty is excessive. Given the incident happened in November, 2010 and he’s still not back behind the wheel, I would tend to agree. A decision is expected within 90 days.

And by the way – NFPA 1500 and best practice calls for a mandatory stop at all negative right of way intersections (red lights, stop signs). It may not be the law, and it may not even be the standard of care – (but then again it might be… only a jury knows for sure) – but its a lot smarter and safer than blowing through red lights at 60 mph.

More on the story.

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

Tagged , , , , , ,

US Sues Texas City Over Demotion Related to “Wetback” Complaint

The US Government has filed suit against the city of Selma, Texas alleging that the city unlawfully demoted a fire lieutenant after he complained about the fire chief’s use of an ethnic slur.

Fire lieutenant Adam Sadler objected to Fire Chief Ric Braun’s use of the slur “wetbacks” in describing yard work he wanted the firefighters to perform.  Lt. Sadler filed a written complaint with Selma’s HR Officer Rebecca Del Torro on June 17, 2009.

On July 8, 2009, Del Torro completed her investigation, concluded the Chief made the derogatory  comments, and required him to attend sensitivity training. Four days later Chief Braun sought to have Lt. Salder demoted.

Several weeks later, Chief Braun received approval for the demotion from City Administrator Ken Roberts, and directed Lt. Sadler to be demoted. According to the lawsuit the demotion was based on Lt. Sadler’s failure to report damage to a “level” that one of his members borrowed on (coincidentally) July 8, 2009. The suit alleged that Roberts never conducted an independent investigation into the stated reasons for Lt. Sadler’s demotion.

The US Department of Justice, following an investigation by the US EEOC, filed suit on Thursday, March 30, 2012 alleging Lt. Sadler’s demotion was in retaliation for his June 17, 2009 complaint. It seeks a court order that prohibits further discrimination, mandates sensitivity training for managers, and the requires the reinstatement of Lt. Sadler to his rank with backpay and seniority.

Here is the on the suit.  DOJ press release .

Here is the complaint.  US v Selma Texas

Posted in Civil Suit, Constitutional Rights, Disciplinary Action, Discrimination, Municipal Liability

Tagged , , , , , , ,

More Fallout Over Prank In Macon-Bibb County, GA

An additional disciplinary action has been announced by the Macon-Bibb County Fire Department following the YouTube video shooting prank that occurred on September 18, 2011. Yesterday, Fire Chief Marvin Riggins increased the punishment for Fire Captain Stephanie Burke from a 2 day suspension to a demotion and 20 day suspension.

The reason for the increase was the disclosure of text messages between Capt. Burke and firefighter Chris Hughes that showed she was much more deeply involved in planning the prank than was previously believed. Hughes was the only member terminated. A total of 8 firefighters have been disciplined.

Burke was demoted to Lieutenant, and based on Macon-Bibb’s schedule her 20 day suspension equates to roughly two months off without pay.  Burke, Hughes and the other disciplined personnel still have the right to contest their penalties.

More on the story.

 

Posted in Disciplinary Action, Social Media, You Can't Make This Stuff Up

Tagged , , , , ,