Skip to content

Archives for gender-discrimination

See all posts in the network tagged with gender-discrimination

Maryland Suit Alleges Pregnancy Discrimination

A Maryland firefighter-paramedic who was terminated in 2011 following her use of sick leave for her pregnancy has filed suit alleging pregnancy and gender discrimination under state and federal law.

Robin Lancaster filed suit against the Sykesville-Freedom District Fire Department in Carroll County Circuit Court last month. The case was removed to federal court earlier this week at the request of the department.

Lancaster was terminated in November 2011, one month after giving birth to her son. However, her problems began about seven months earlier when she began using sick leave on account of morning sickness and pregnancy-related medical appointments. A fire department board member, Bill Luebberman, cautioned her about her sick leave usage suggesting she may be written up if it continued.

In May of 2011, Lancaster was advised not to lift more than 40 pounds. When she notified Luebberman he informing her via email:

If you have a doctor's note saying that you can not [sic] function as a Paramedic, then it's now time for you to go on sick leave. When sick leave is gone, then revert to annual leave. When that runs out apply for short term disability. We do not have light duty status at Sykesville.

Lancaster was also advised that she was being treated the same as male employees. That issue remains a point of contention between the parties.

After Lancaster had her son in October, 2011 she sought permission to return to work. She emailed Lubberman who replied: "What makes you think that you still have a job at Sykesville?"

The two exchanged additional emails and quoting from the complaint:

Mr. Luebberman responded, "I'm not sure we want you back with us at this time. Board meeting tonight." Mr. Luebbennan never offered any explanation for why SFDFD did not "want her back"- he never referenced poor performance or any elimination of her job. Similarly, the Minutes from the SFDFD Board of Directors meeting offer nothing more than, "EMPLOYEE: We wilI be hiring a full time ALS provider." There is no reference to any performance issues on the part of Ms. Lancaster and it is clear that SFDFFD was looking for a replacement for her position. Ms. Lancaster received a letter from Kevin M. Shiloli (President) on  November 15, 2011 stating, '"The-Employee Board along with the Board of Directors of The Sykesville Freedom District Fire Department regrets to inform  you that your employment with the Sykesville Freedom District Fire Department has been terminated effective November 15, 2011. We however, wish you success in your future endeavors."

The two count complaint alleges that Lancaster’s termination was due to her pregnancy, constituting discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as under Title 20 of the “Maryland State Government Article”.

Here is a copy of the complaint: Lancaster v Sykesville

More on the story.

Incidentally, it appears that Lancaster was the first pregnant employee that Sykesville Freedom District Fire Department has had to deal with. It would also appear that the department was in a reactionary mode in dealing with the issues that commonly arise with pregnant employees.

Departments in such a reactionary mode may be tempted to try to address pregnancy-related leave issues with cost-management approach in mind. Hint: that is probably not a good idea. Getting good HR and legal advice is critical in such situations.

The best course of action for any fire department is to think through all the implications associated with pregnant employees well in advance of such a situation. That way a policy can be developed at a point in time when there is no particular employee – with the history and baggage that real life employees inevitably introduce – that can add a whole other level of complexity to policy development.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted in Civil Suit, Discrimination, Municipal Liability, Wrongful termination

Tagged , , , , , ,

No comments Posted by on May 23, 2013

Chicago Settles Sex Discrimination Suit Over Abilities Test

 

A settlement has been announced in the 2011 gender discrimination case involving the Chicago Fire Department.

The suit, Vasich v. City of Chicago, alleged that the department’s physical abilities test unlawfully discriminated against women because it had a disparate impact on women candidates and was not sufficiently job related.

The lead plaintiff, Samantha Vasich, claims she rigorously prepared for the test, including hiring a personal trainer to assist her, to no avail. The class action suit was filed in federal court.

Attorney Marni Willenson, who represents the plaintiffs, said that under the settlement 138 women who previously failed the physical abilities test will be allowed to reapply or receive a portion of a $2 million payment.

As part of the settlement the city has agreed to adopt the Candidate Physical Ability Test (CPAT), developed by the IAFF.

Despite the fact that the settlement still must be approved by the city council and the judge, the women have been informed that may reapply beginning Monday, May 6, 2013

It is unclear from the news reports whether this settlement will resolve the 2012 suit Godfrey vs. City of Chicago. That suit was brought by twenty African-American female firefighters who where granted a preference under the Lewis v. City of Chicago (race discrimination) settlement, but failed the physical abilities test. All twenty Godfrey plaintiffs are plaintiffs in the Vasich case.

More on the Vasich case.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted in Civil Suit, Constitutional Rights, Discrimination, Municipal Liability, Negligence, Politics

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

4 comments Posted by on May 5, 2013

Louisiana Discrimination Case Wraps Up 32 Years Later

How long is too long? When it comes to the duration of consent decrees intended to address discriminatory practices in fire departments, that is a question that many firefighters ask. In the case of Leesville, Louisiana it took 32 years for the city and the US Department of Justice to finally put an end to a discrimination suit.

The action dates back to December 9, 1980 when the DOJ filed suit alleging that the police and fire department’s’ hiring practices violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The city and the DOJ entered into a consent decree intended to address concerns over the hiring of African Americans and females.

Last November the DOJ announced that it was lifting its demand for a consent decree noting that the hiring practices in both departments had improved significantly. Last Wednesday, the city announced that the case had been finally settled, ending the 32 years of court oversight.

Leesville’s mayor, Robert Rose, commended the work of both departments and the leadership of Police Chief Greg Hill and Fire Chief Dewaine Lawson, in bringing the matter to a close.

More on the story.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted in Civil Suit, Constitutional Rights, Discrimination, Historical, Municipal Liability, Politics

Tagged , , ,

No comments Posted by on January 17, 2013

Another Gender Discrimination Suit For Chicago Fire

Twenty African-American female applicants to the Chicago Fire Department who are already plaintiffs in two other discrimination suits against the city, have filed yet a third suit against the city, this time challenging a physical abilities test that was used to hire African-American firefighters as part of a settlement of the well known race discrimination suit, Lewis v. City of Chicago.

The twenty women filed the class action lawsuit on behalf of “similarly situated” women applicants for CFD.  Each had passed the written exam for the department, but failed the physical abilities test. The 17 page complaint was filed last Friday, October 26, 2012, in US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The women are all plaintiffs in the Lewis case, as well as a separate gender discrimination case filed last year, Vasich v. City of Chicago.

The suit alleges that the city used a physical abilities test to hire 111 African American firefighters that discriminated against women. It is the same test that is the focus of the Vasich suit. The Chicago Sun Times quoted lead attorney Marni Willenson  as complaining “It’s a test that doesn’t really test for the abilities you need to become a firefighter and screens out women needlessly and unjustifiably.”  

The new case is titled Godfrey v. City of Chicago. Here is a copy of the complaint. Godfrey v City of Chicago

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

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

Tagged , , , , , ,

1 comment Posted by on October 28, 2012

Topeka Deputy Chief Seeks $1.3 Million for Sex Discrimination

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

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

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

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

The complaint includes the following allegations:

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

Here is a copy of the complaint. Petty v Topeka

More on the story.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

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

Tagged , , , ,

2 comments Posted by on July 25, 2012

San Jose Settles Sex Discrimination Suit

The city of San Jose has agreed to settle a sexual discrimination suit brought last year by two female fire captains who claimed they were wrongfully denied promotions.

Captains Debra Ward and Patricia Tapia filed the suit in state court alleging that despite their high scores (Ward came out 1st and Tapia number 8th on the objective portion of the process) the city promoted nine men to battalion chief. The women were graded down during the subjective interview phase.

According to the suit, a number of the males who were selected were close friends of the fire chief and belonged to a Christian firefighter group led by a deputy chief. In addition, they alleged that after they were turned down for the promotion they were asked to train one of the men who was promoted.

The case has been settled for $395,000. Tapia, who also alleged race discrimination based on her Latino heritage, has already been promoted to Battalion Chief.

The settlement is the second sex discrimination suit settled by the city in recent years. Recall in 2009, the city settled with firefighter Julie LaBlanc, whose son came out of a fire station bathroom with a pornographic magazine in hand following a visit. When LeBlanc complained she was harassed by co-workers. Leblanc received a $200,000 settlement.

LeBlanc’s attorney, Angela Alioto, also represented Ward and Tapia. The settlement is expected to be approved by the city council on June 19, 2012.

More on the story.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

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

Tagged , , , ,

1 comment Posted by on June 14, 2012

Iowa Firefighter Alleges Pregnancy Discrimination Over Denial of Light Duty

A Clinton, Iowa firefighter has filed a gender and pregnancy discrimination suit because she was not granted a light duty position to accommodate her pregnancy.

Karen McQuistion is a firefighter with the Clinton Fire Department who became pregnant last spring. On May 11, 2011 she notified Fire Chief Mark Regenwether, and requested that her condition be accommodated by a transfer to a light duty position. That request was denied due to the financial condition of the city, and McQuistion continued to work on the line until September 29, 2011 when her doctor advised her to take leave.

In October 2011, McQuistion filed discrimination charges against the city with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission, and received a right to sue letter.

The lawsuit, filed in Clinton County District Court on March 28, 2012, contains three counts: (1) gender and pregnancy discrimination under state law, (2) a violation of the Iowa state constitution’s equal protection clause, and (3) a violation of Iowa constitution’s due process clause. In what is no doubt a strategic move to keep the case out of Federal court, the complaint DOES NOT allege gender discrimination under Federal law, a violation of the Federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act, nor violations of McQuistion’s Federal Constitutional rights.

The suit alleges that Clinton police officers receive light duty accommodations for pregnancies, and that the fire department allows firefighters who are injured on the job to perform light duty, but denies that accommodation to pregnant firefighters.

The suit names City of Clinton, City Attorney Jeffrey Farwell, City Administrator Jeffrey Horne, and Fire Chief Mark Regenwether, who recently retired. It seeks compensatory damages to cover McQuistion’s lost wages, plus punitive damages “in an amount sufficient to punish the defendants and deter the defendants and others from the same or similar wrongful conduct.”

Here is a copy of the complaint. McQuistion v Clinton

As for the law in a nutshell: As a general rule, a pregnant employee cannot force an employer to create a light duty assignment. Thus if a fire department had no light duty positions, a pregnant firefighter would be out of luck. However, if an employer grants employees light duty assignments for medical and other reasons, it cannot refuse to accommodate an employee who seeks a light duty position on the basis of pregnancy.

More on the story.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted in Civil Suit, Constitutional Rights, Discrimination

Tagged , , , , , ,

No comments Posted by on April 9, 2012