Skip to content


Fire Law Headlines in FDNY and Dallas

Its been a busy few days from the Fire Law perspective and I am trying to catch up with some of the major headlines from across the country.

The city of New York received a favorable ruling from the 2nd Circuit yesterday in the historic FDNY race discrimination lawsuit. The FDNY had been crucified for the past three years in Federal District Court by the trial judge, Nicholas Garaufis.

Judge Garaufis ruled that not only had the city committed unintentional discrimination (disparate impact… ie. statistical discrimination) in its selection process for FDNY, but that by continuing to use a selection process that showed a disparate impact over the course of decades the city committed intentional (disparate treatment) discrimination.

Based on the unintentional (disparate impact) discrimination, Judge Garaufis invalidated the use of tests that showed a disparate impact, and ordered the appointment of a Special Master to oversee the hiring process. Due to the intentional (disparate treatment) discrimination finding he ordered a more “robust” array of remedial actions, including racial preferences/hiring quotas, $128 million in damages to be paid to minority applicants who were not selected, and the creation of an oversight monitor for 10 years to ensure necessary changes were implemented.

The city did not appeal the disparate impact finding, but rather focused narrowly on Judge Garaufis’ disparate treatment finding. The city also alleged that the judge had lost his objectivity in the case.

The 2nd Circuit agreed with the city that the finding of intentional discrimination (disparate treatment) was improper, and sent that part of the case back for a trial on the merits. The court concluded Judge Garaufis had not lost his objectivity, but ruled he should not preside over the trial.

The court reversed all of Judge Garaufis’ remedies associated with the disparate treatment finding, although the court agreed the oversight monitor should remain in effect for five years.

Since the ruling both sides have been declaring victory. New York City Corporation Counsel Michael A. Cardozo released a statement saying: “We are extremely pleased that the Second Circuit recognized significant problems in the manner in which the District Court handled the case.”

An attorney for the plaintiffs, Dana Lossia, countered that “The court monitor will oversee the FDNY’s hiring practices until 2017. That type of order is only issued and affirmed if there is a true serious issue.”

Here is a copy of the ruling. US v City of New York

More on the story.

 

And briefly…. Dallas Fire-Rescue reached a settlement in the 2009 sexual harassment suit filed by Leanne Siri-Edwards. Siri-Edwards was the civilian executive who was brought in to help newly hire Fire Chief Eddie Burns manage the department.

The lawsuit claimed that “Pervasive, severe, outrageous and obscene acts of discrimination, hostility, disrespect and harassment by [Dallas Fire-Rescue] leaders have slowly dismantled [Siri-Edwards’] reputation and her spirit."

The settlement calls for Siri-Edwards to be paid $390,000.

More on the story.

For my homies… I will get to the North Kingstown ruling by weeks end.  I am still trying to digest the ruling… despite the sense of nausea I get reading it… I keep telling myself "we are a country of laws, not men"… but all too often we see judges who let their political ideology corrupt their reasoning… but I digress.

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

Tagged , , , , ,

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.

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

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 , , ,

Miami Beach Race Sex Discrimination Claim

The Miami Beach Fire Department’s settlement with a black firefighter recruit who claims he was harassed by white co-workers moved one step closer to resolution last week with the release of an investigation report.

Brian Gentles alleges that he was racially and sexually harassed in 2011 and early 2012. The allegations include being told “go back to Africa,” that a noose “would look good around your neck,” being called “n—–” and “faggot,” having a co-worker’s testicles placed on his face, and having a broomstick shoved up his buttocks.

Gentles claims that when he complained to superiors about the conduct he was terminated. That prompted a 15 page complaint to the EEOC demanding $5.3 million in damages, lost wages and attorney’s fees.

In September, the city offered to settle the case for $100,000 and a job offer for Gentles to work as an inspector. Gentles originally accepted the offer, but later appeared to renege on it, going so far as to threaten to go on a hunger strike in November to get his firefighter job back.

Last week, the city released the report of Steven Schwarzberg who was hired to investigate Gentles’ allegations. Schwarzberg interviewed more than 30 witnesses and wrote in his report that “So many people categorically denied the accusations made against them and others so as to call to question whether there was any factual basis for the charges.” His conclusion was that there was no evidence to substantiate any of Gentles’ allegations.

The Miami Herald quoted Gentles as saying that Schwarzberg was “paid by the city, so he’s really not independent.”

Gentles has until January 1, 2013 to start his job as an investigator. The New Times reported that the Miami Beach City Attorney’s office issued a statement saying  “Mr. Gentles has agreed to a settlement with the city and he needs to abide by it.”

More on the story.

Posted in Civil Suit, Constitutional Rights, Disciplinary Action, Discrimination, Municipal Liability, Sexual misconduct, Wrongful termination, You Can't Make This Stuff Up

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Fresno Fire Facing Discrimination Suit

The Fresno Fire Department is facing a race discrimination suit from a firefighter who is also the leading vote-getter in the election for city council in Tulare.

Carlton Jones claims he was wrongly suspended in 2009 when he was arrested for felony assault, and prevented from returning work for six months. He further alleges the department purposefully had his EMT license suspended, and that as a result even though he was found not-guilty of the charges, he had to defend himself before the EMS licensing board (Central California Emergency Medical Services Agency for Fresno).

Jones, who is African American, claims that white firefighters who were similarly situated were not disciplined the same way. He originally filed suit in Frenso County Superior Court in September, but the city removed the case to Federal court last week because the complaint alleges violations of Jones’s civil rights.

The complaint is an interesting read. Without getting into the merits of the case, I get a kick out of how many California attorneys tend to embellish and make what amounts to irrelevant arguments in their pleadings – something my father would never have allowed me to do as a young attorney. Consider these:

  • Plaintiff was shocked and appalled at the actions being taken against him, as Defendants had never even attempted to talk with him about the… charges, prior to taking actions against him
  • Plaintiff thought it would be only right that he be reimbursed for his lost accrued leave, etc., that he consumed in order to survive during the pendency of the dispute.
  • Amazingly, Defendants had the complete lack of fairness or ethics to grant Plaintiff’s request and refused to compensate him for that part of his loss.
  • Plaintiff was horrified and depressed by the way he was being trampled and dismissed by Defendants, and proceeded to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission…

And then there is my favorite comment: “Through years of hard-work, proven skills, and a commitment to excellence, Plaintiff rose through the ranks at the Fresno Fire Department, ultimately reaching the title/position of Engineer.” Keep in mind Jones was hired in 2002, and suspended in 2009. Gotta love how lawyers can embellish…

 

Here is the original complaint.State Court Complaint

Here is the removal notice. Removal

More on the story.

Posted in Civil Suit, Constitutional Rights, Criminal Law, Disciplinary Action, Discrimination, EMS, Wrongful termination

Tagged , ,

Miami Beach Recruit Claims Discrimination

A former recruit with the Miami Beach Fire Department is claiming he was sexually and racially harassed by fellow recruits, and that when he complained he was dismissed from the department.

Brian Gentles filed a complaint with the US Equal Opportunities Commission earlier this year alleging he was discriminated against. He is black and was born in Jamaca. Gentles claims he was subjected to racist jokes by other recruits and on one occasion a training officer handed him a job application to Burger King suggesting he apply to “be with your people”.  He also claims that a fellow recruit “tea-bagged” him.

Gentles claims that when he initially reported the abuse an investigation was launched. However, when it came time for him to speak to investigators, union officials told him not to snitch so he reluctantly recanted his story. He was terminated in February, 2012 without explanation.

The Fire Department agreed to mediate the EEOC case, and last month offered to give Gentles a $100,000 settlement and a position as a fire inspector. However, the Miami New Times claims the city is now reneging on the offer and Gentles is again demanding a job as a firefighter.

More on the story.

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

Tagged , , ,

Ohio Firefighter Settles Discrimination Suit Over Tattoo

A female firefighter who claimed she was being discriminated against by being ordered to cover her tattoos has reached a settlement with her department.

Firefighter Linda Goetz sued the city of Forest Park claiming that she was being unlawfully singled out to cover her tattoos while male employees and even an African American female employee were not.

The tattoos in question were a dragonfly tattoo on the left side of her neck, a dandelion tattoo on the right side of her neck, a cross on the inner side of her left bicep, lightning bolt on the upper inner portion of her right forearm and Indian feathers on her right foot.

Goetz alleged that in 2010 she was ordered to wear turtlenecks to cover her neck tattoos, and on one occasion had to be hospitalized for heat exhaustion in 100-degree heat [Note: I’ll bet that allegation plays better to civilians than it does to firefighters…].

When she refused to cover her tattoos, she was disciplined, prompting her suit in Federal court.

US District Court Judge Michael R. Barrett recently issued a split decision on the City’s motion for summary judgment, ruling in favor of the fire department on allegations of direct sex or race discrimination, but finding there to be a triable question of fact as to whether the disciplining of Goetz was merely a pretext for sex or race discrimination.

Judge Barrett concluded that under the pretext theory, it should be up to a jury to decide if other employees should have been disciplined for their tattoos and if so, whether the basis for not disciplining them was their sex or race.

Here is a copy of the ruling, which undoubtedly played a role in the parties reaching a settlement.  Goetz v City of Forest Park MSJ

The settlement makes those issues moot. The terms of the settlement have not been released.

More on the story.

Here is a copy of the original complaint. Goetz v City of Forest Park

October 25, 2012: followup story about the former Forest Park fire chief who was involved with the Goetz case:   http://www.journal-news.com/news/news/administrator-unaware-of-lawsuit-involving-interim/nSn2L/

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

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Georgia FD Contemplates Settling Discrimination Claims

The city of Albany, Georgia will decide today whether to settle three separate lawsuits filed by former Assistant Chief Roderick Jolivette, who claims he was discriminated against.

Chief Jolivette’s case is complicated. In 2009 he was fired for allegedly ordering on-duty firefighters to clean up a relative’s flood damaged house. He was later reinstated but demoted to firefighter, and soon there after got into trouble again. Chief Jolivette was allegedly stopped for speeding and identified himself as a sheriff’s office employee. He was charged with impersonating a police officer, but those charges were later dropped.

The chief filed three lawsuits, Roderick Jolivette v. City of Albany and James Carswell (#1:10-CV-54 WLS, U.S. District Court); Roderick Jolivette v. City of Albany (#10-CV-3048-3, Dougherty Superior Court); and  Roderick Jolivette v. City of Albany and James Carswell (#1:10-CV-106 WLS, U.S. District Court); as well as a discrimination complaint with the EEOC.  

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, all three suits and the EEOC charge will be dismissed in exchange for the payment of $280,000. In addition, Chief Jolivette’s will submit his resignation from the department.WALB.com, Albany News, Weather, Sports

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

Tagged , ,

DC Prevails in Discrimination Suit

A decision handed down today in US District Court for the District of Columbia is not going make the Rubin-haters in DC very happy, but its another ruling in favor of former Fire Chief Dennis Rubin.

The case involved the termination of a Black female fire captain, Vanessa Coleman, who alleged race and gender discrimination, along with violations of her First Amendment Rights and violation of DC’s Whistleblower law.  It is a complex case with the Plaintiff pointing fingers at virtually everyone in the organization: her immediate superiors, her immediate subordinates, the fire chief, an assistant chief, and the district’s legal counsel.

Rather than paraphrase what allegedly transpired, let’s use the court’s own words (quoted in italics below) to explain the case.

I would encourage folks who are genuinely concerned with understanding what a modern fire chief has to contend with these days, to read the entire 38 page decision. It is easy to see why some fire chiefs might find an excuse not to try to address these kinds of complex employee problems – when at the end of the day you have to defend yourself in Federal court.

Plaintiff, an African-American female, was a captain in FEMS on March 12, 2008 when a fire broke out in a high-rise apartment building in the Mt. Pleasant neighborhood of Washington, D.C…The fire was one of the “largest in the Department’s recent history, and drew a great deal of attention and criticism from the public.” … The fire was apparently not adequately controlled by FEMS, and led to a total loss of the building as well as damage to a neighboring church.

An internal FEMS dispute over plaintiff’s role at the scene of the fire triggered the main events leading to this litigation… Plaintiff claims that upon arrival at the scene, she began a check of the basement as required by the department’s standard operating guidelines before being interrupted by the operations commander at the scene, Battalion Fire Chief (BFC) John Lee, who diverted her away from the basement and towards the third floor…

In the months following the fire, FEMS began investigating the failure. Plaintiff filed a series of memoranda to superiors, providing her side of the story, contesting her innocence of misconduct, explaining that John Lee’s tactical error had caused the failure to control the fire, and requesting a formal investigation into the events…

Plaintiff also aired some of these grievances publicly, through a “personal journal” posted on a blog, and a phone interview that aired on a radio station…

On April 17, BFC John Lee cited the plaintiff for violating Article VII, Section 2 of the D.C. Fire and EMS Order Book for violating the Standard Operating Guide and “fail[ing] to ensure that the basement check was completed…

On May 19, plaintiff’s challenge was heard by BFC James Kane. … Kane found plaintiff guilty and recommended a 24-hour suspension…

 Plaintiff reacted to all this by filing a series of memoranda and appeals in June and July contesting her innocence, complaining that the hearing before Kane was procedurally defective, and seeking reversal. … Several of these memos contained unusual language. In one, plaintiff purported to cite a superior, claiming that he “ha[d] orchestrated a behavior of mutiny” and referred to a “conspiracy against her.” …

Another complained that a “pursuit to diabolically cripple [her] professional career” had “become the primary agenda of [her] chief officials.” … The volume of these memoranda peaked when plaintiff filed six memoranda directed to a single officer (Chief Rubin) in the course of the single day – behavior which plaintiff acknowledges “a supervisor could perhaps find . . . out of the ordinary.” … Fire Chief Rubin affirmed Kane’s decision and the 24-hour suspension as penalty. …

(more…)

Posted in Civil Suit, Constitutional Rights, Disciplinary Action, Discrimination, First Amendment, Municipal Liability, Sexual Harassment, Wrongful termination, You Can't Make This Stuff Up

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Buffalo Prevails in Race Discrimination Suit

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

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

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

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

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

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Discrimination Suit in Washington State Takes Bizarre Turn

A lawyer suing the Vancouver (WA) Fire Department for discrimination has gotten himself in a bit of a pickle.

Attorney Thomas Boothe stands accused of contempt of court following a mistrial in a Federal court jury trial. Boothe was trying the case on behalf of former Vancouver Fire Department employee Rolando Hernandez, who alleged race discrimination, retaliation and a hostile work place. Hernandez was seeking $2.5 million in damages.

The case dates back to 2006 and has already been up to the 9th Circuit once on appeal. The trial began on June 11, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

On the fourth day of the trial two jurors notified Judge Ronald Leighton that they observed Boothe “coaching” his witnesses while they were being cross-examined. In particular the jurors said they observed Boothe nodding and mouthing answers in response to questions posed to the witnesses, followed by the witnesses answering as Boothe instructed.

Judge Leighton also reported that Boothe may have intimidated a witness, a Vancouver city official, and may have forged a court document. He declared a mistrial, and informed Boothe he would have to appear before him in October to answer contempt charges.

As if the mistrial and the contempt citation were not enough, Boothe could face disciplinary action by the Washington Supreme Court (who oversees lawyers in the practice of law), and the Washington State Bar Association Disciplinary Counsel who investigates and prosecutes allegations of misconduct.

More on the story.

Posted in Civil Suit, Constitutional Rights, Discrimination, You Can't Make This Stuff Up

Tagged , , , ,

New Haven Firefighter Claims Light Duty Discrimination

The New Haven Fire Department is facing another discrimination charge, this time from a firefighter who claims he was “mercilessly” discriminated against while in training because he was asked to paint fire hydrants, mop floors and wash windows.

Aaron Brantley filed the complaint with the Connecticut State Commission on Human Rights alleging race discrimination. He claims he suffered a shoulder injury, and was asked to do these outrageous tasks while on light duty in May of 2011.

The complaint names the City of New Haven, New Haven Fire Department, Assistant Fire Chief Patrick Egan and Capt. Mark Marcarelli who heads the training division and alleges that Brantley was transferred to different firehouses, ordered to paint 25 to 30 fire hydrants, mop floors, and even instructed to wash windows at the fire training school while it was raining.

Brantley claims he was on light duty at the time, with doctor’s orders restricting him from any repetitive motion with his right arm and lifting more than 21 pounds of weight. Brantley’s attorney, Patricia Cofrancesco, said that the department’s action amounted to “hazing” and went “beyond the pale” of reasonable light-duty work, all because Brantley is Black.

Fire department officials have countered that the tasks assigned to Brantley were all reasonable light duty assignments. Capt.  Marcarelli denied ordering Brantley to wash the training academy’s windows in the rain, referring to the allegation as “false” and “ridiculous”.

Chief Egan was quoted as saying “For $50 an hour, I don’t think it is a whole lot to ask someone to do … The fact is, when people are at work, they’re going to work.”

More on the story.

Posted in Civil Suit, Constitutional Rights, Discrimination, Municipal Liability, Occupational Safety & Health, Workers Compensation

Tagged , , ,

Jacksonville Firefighters Hit With Second Discrimination Lawsuit

On the heels of a major discrimination lawsuit filed by the US Department of Justice against the Jacksonville Fire Rescue Department and Jacksonville Firefighters, IAFF Local 122, the US Equal Opportunity Employment Commission has filed separate discrimination suit against IAFF Local 122. The second suit was filed yesterday, April 30, 2012 in the same court as the previous case that was filed on April 23, 2012.

Both suits allege that written examinations used for promotional purposes within the department have a disparate impact on black candidates, and are “not job related and consistent with business necessity”. The second suit alleges that the union has “advocated for, acquiesced in, and in fact negotiated in favor of a promotional process that has had an adverse impact on black candidates”. The suit also contends that “the union has advocated for and negotiated in favor of the discriminatory promotional process each time a collective bargaining agreement was negotiated between 2004 and the present.”

Here is a copy of the two complaints.  DOJ Suit     EEOC Suit

I’ll throw this question out to the legal eagles out there: Isn’t the US DOJ and the US EEOC one party… the United States of America? Can one party maintain two separate lawsuits against the same entity over the exact same issue?

And perhaps the bigger question: what point is the EEOC trying to make? The DOJ lawsuit makes the point that the US government believes the union is partially responsible for the discrimination… but it appears that is not enough for the EEOC.

Posted in Civil Suit, Constitutional Rights, Discrimination, Labor Law, Municipal Liability, Politics, Promotions

Tagged , , , , ,

FDNY Ordered to Pay Up to $128M in Damages

In a long anticipated ruling, Federal District Court Judge Nicholas Garaufis has ordered the city of New York to pay damages to past minority applicants to FDNY a total of up to $128,696,803. The ruling is part of the 2007 discrimination suit brought by the United States and the Vulcan Society alleging decades of discriminatory hiring.

The total amount that claimants could receive will likely be less than the full $128M, because it will be offset by any income that the claimants actually made during the interim years.

Tensions continue to increase between the city and Judge Garaufis. City officials have publically alleged that the judge has abandoned his role as a neutral and become an advocate for the plaintiffs. They have even asked an appellate court to remove Judge Garaufis from the case. In his ruling, Judge Garaufis appointed four special monitors to oversee the awarding of back pay, and ruled that hearings may not be delayed while the city appeals.

Here is a copy of the decision. Damage Order.  It is 64 tortuous pages.  

In the decision, the judge spent considerable time reviewing the facts leading up to his ruling, including an in depth discussion of the statistical disparity of the (a) pass-fail rates and (b) hiring rates of black and Hispanic candidates. This data led him state: “The court concluded that the evidence for a prima facie case of disparate impact was “overwhelming.””

In stark contrast to the judge’s in-depth statistical analysis of evidence tending to prove race discrimination, the court in just one paragraph summarized the city’s arguments, which were rejected as “nothing more than metaphysical doubts about the nature of statistical evidence that were unsupported in law.” The court also summarily rejected the city’s “business necessity defense”… that written examinations are necessary and written examinations inherently tend to disfavor minority applicants.

Missing from the discussion was any mention of job requirements or applicant qualifications. In other words there continues to be an implicit assumption that, on average, the white applicant pool was equivalent in terms of aptitude to the black candidate pool and the Hispanic applicant pool, and that it was the exam alone that caused the statistical difference between what otherwise are equally qualified groups.

The willingness to accept that assumption seems to be at the heart of much of the out of court rhetoric and debate over the decision. Yet that issue continues to be overlooked in the court’s analysis.

The remainder of the decision focuses of the minutia of how back-pay should be calculated, the identification of various sub-groups among the minority candidates, and the procedure to be followed by the special masters in evaluating and awarding damages. Its a tough read for firefighters and lawyers (and firefighter-lawyers) who lack a degree in statistics…

Here is more on the story.

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

Tagged , , ,

Fire Inspector Alleges Race Discrimination in Norwalk, Connecticut

Today’s Burning Question: I am a firefighter who did not get a promotion because of my race and its not right. I was senior to the guy who they gave the promotion to. I scored 9 points higher on the written exam – which I consider to be a truly objective measure since race can’t be factored in. Not surprisingly the fire chief says he did better than me on the oral exam – enough to overcome a total of 14 points from seniority and exam scores but that is so subjective. On top of that the panel for the oral had two members of “his” race and only one of mine. Do I have a case?

Answer: In my twenty-seven years of practicing law, I have been asked a question like this dozens of times. In each and every case the person who claimed to have been discriminated against was white. That is not the case in Norwalk, Connecticut where Fire Inspector Broderick Sawyer claims he was passed over for promotion to deputy fire marshal because he was black. The promotion went to Chris Hansen, who is white. Sawyer scored an 83 on the written exam to Hansen’s 74. Sawyer is senior. But Hanson apparently did substantially better on the oral exam… enough to overcome the 14 point advantage Sawyer had going in. That prompted Sawyer to file a complaint with the EEOC.

Norwalk Councilman David A. Watts seems to have taken up Sawyer’s cause, and even predicted the matter will be resolved soon. The number of minorities on the department has dropped from 14 in 2001 to 6 today, raising additional concerns about racial conditions in the department.

Sawyer was quoted in the Norwalk Patch as claiming he’s also been the victim of racial harassment within the fire department, but those claims sound a bit less than conclusive. Sawyer told a reporter that someone left a paper plate on his desk in 2010 saying “You da man” after he asked for a performance evaluation. He also claims someone left a baby’s pacifier on his desk. Sounds like stretch there… Geeze kid, you have a pretty solid prima facia case of race discrimination. Forget the small stuff - stick with your strongest argument and above all don’t go shooting yourself in the foot by saying too much… oh … wait a minute, did you say you had a problem with the oral exam?

Posted in Burning Question, Civil Suit, Constitutional Rights, Discrimination, Promotions

Tagged , , , , ,

Another Race Discrimination Suit for FDNY

Five FDNY electricians have filed a race discrimination lawsuit against three coworkers and the FDNY. The 36 page complaint alleges that supervisors and coworkers subjected the employees to ridicule, scorn, threats, and retaliation, and that they were denied overtime and promotional opportunities.

The case made headlines over a year ago when the plaintiffs, Gregory Seabrook, Ismael Ortiz, Edward Pitre, Joe Adams, and Dudley Placide, filed their administrative complaints with the New York State Division of Human Rights. At that time Seabrook alleged that a noose was left near his locker, and they all claimed that they were being harassed because of their race. Seabrook, Adams and Placide are black, while Ortiz and Pitre are Hispanic.

The five allege that two supervisors, Robert Zerillo and John Forrentino, and a co-worker, Richard Cassidy, were among those responsible for the harassment. All three were named personally in the suit as defendants, as was the FDNY. The suit was filed on December 20, 2011, less than 2 weeks after they received their right to sue letter from the EEOC.

The complaint sets forth a number of detailed allegations, including:

  • Supervisors not posting information about promotional opportunities
  • Over $200,000 in overtime being worked by a white supervisor and his son-in law, that should have been distributed among all employees
  • Collective bargaining agreement violations
  • Excessive work demands, threats, ridicule, and verbal abuse

Here is a copy of the complaint: Seabrook v FDNY

The suit joins several other race related suits pending against the FDNY, including:

  • A major suit by the EEOC and the Vulcan Society alleging race discrimination in hiring that has prompted major changes in the hiring process for FDNY;
  • Suit by the wife of recruit Jamiel Sears who died during training that alleges discrimination;
  • Suit by EMS Lt. Valarie Brancato alleging discrimination.

Incidentally, the Seabrook complaint cites to the EEOC/Vulcan society suit, and Judge Garaufis’s finding  that the FDNY was guilty of an “pattern, practice, and policy of intentional discrimination”.

Posted in Civil Suit, Constitutional Rights, Discrimination

Tagged , , , ,

Deputy Chief Sues Baltimore City For Race Discrimination

A deputy chief in the Baltimore City Fire Department has filed suit against the department, the fire chief, an assistant chief, a deputy mayor,  and the mayor and city council of Baltimore alleging race discrimination.

Deputy Chief Lloyd Carter filed suit on December 12, 2011, alleging he was wrongfully passed over for promotion because he is African American. He also claims that he has been subjected to harassing, embarrassing and humiliating work conditions, and retaliation based upon his race.

Named as defendants in the suit are Fire Chief James Clack, Assistant Chief Donald Heinbuch, Deputy Mayor Chris Thomaskutty, along with the Baltimore City Fire Department and the mayor and City Council. The suit was filed in Federal District Court and seeks $3 million in damages.

Chief Carter has been in charge of recruiting for Baltimore City FD since last July. The suit alleges he has been subjected to a series of unsubstantiated accusations and investigations that have damaged his good name. While not named as a defendant, IAFF Local 984 President Stephen Fugate, stands accused of filing some of the complaints against Chief Carter. IAFF Local 984 is the officers union.

Here is a copy of the complaint. Carter v Baltimore City Fire

More on the story.

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

Tagged , ,

North Hudson Regional Fire Rescue Residency Rule Struck Down

On Tuesday, the US 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals handed down an important fire service ruling involving residency and discrimination.

The case involved the North Hudson Regional Fire & Rescue in New Jersey. The department had a residency requirement that all applicants must be a resident of one of the five communities making up the regional district. The district is 69.6% Hispanic, 22.9% white, and 3.4% African American. The department is 79.5% white, 19.2% Hispanic, and .6% African American.

Suit was brought by the NAACP on behalf of African American applicants claiming that the residency requirement created a disparate impact. The department’s defense was that opening the process up to non-residents would potentially disadvantage Hispanics and other minorities by allowing more white applicants from other towns to apply.

The court noted that some New Jersey fire departments use residency requirements to enhance minority employment opportunities. The court even referenced a 1977 race discrimination case brought by the Federal government against twelve NJ municipalities, where the jurisdictions entered into consent decrees that mandated the use of residency requirements to enhance minority recruitment. Those consent decrees remain in effect today, some 30+ years later.

But the 3rd Circuit rejected the use of a residency requirement by NHRFR in this case finding that it served to limit African Americans from applying to become firefighters, and thereby caused the disparate impact. The court further concluded that the use of the residency requirement could not be justified as a business necessity.

Ultimately, the court’s decision appears to have rested on the conclusions of two statisticians who served as expert witnesses in the case. The two determined through some convoluted sort of reasoning that the residency requirement was responsible for the small numbers of  African Americans working for NHRFR. [Please don’t take my word on the convoluted reasoning part – try to read it yourself and then you tell me… see the link to the decision below]

Following the ruling, the NAACP’s attorney, David Rose, was quoted as saying “Obviously, we’re pleased”. Hummmm…. I can’t help but wonder if he and the NAACP realize just what the long term result of their “victory” will be in terms of the applicant pool. It is quite likely NHRFR will now see a dramatic increase in applicants from primarily white suburban and rural areas who previously were prohibited from applying. Personally, I think the NAACP may have (which cliché should I use) won the battle but lost the war… shot themselves in the foot.

Attorney Tom Kobin who represents NHRFR, indicated he will be requesting a en banc hearing before the full 3rd Circuit. Barring that, the case may end up at the US Supreme Court.

Here is a copy of the ruling:   NAACP v No Hudson      (happy reading – it’s a tough one…)

More on the story.

Posted in Civil Suit, Constitutional Rights, Discrimination, Politics

Tagged , , , , ,

New Haven… Again… When Will It End

A group of seven black New Haven firefighters have filed suit against the city seeking to again litigate the validity of the 2003 promotional examinations that gave rise to the US Supreme Court decision in Ricci v. DeStefano.

Gary Tinney , Linda D. Cohens , Bernard McNeil , Anthony Reese , Curtis Tolson , Michael Neal  and Anthony Wells  sued the City of New Haven and IAFF Local 825 alleging  the 2003 promotion process  violated their due process, equal protection, and 14th Amendment rights by using a testing process that adversely impacted African-American promotion candidates.

The suit follows the plaintiffs’ previous efforts to intervene in the Ricci case, in order challenge the 2003 process as having a “disparate impact” – or discriminatory effect on blacks.  Those previous efforts were unsuccessful, but their point is well taken: the statistical data on the New Haven test showed that blacks did significantly worse in the selection process than whites, with pass rates that were 62.1% for lieutenants and 58.5% for captains of the white pass rate. Federal regulations established by the EEOC require that for a selection process to be presumptively valid the black pass rate must be 80% of the white pass rate.

The plaintiffs’ problem is that the US Supreme Court has already concluded that an employer who has gone through the great lengths that New Haven has gone through to eliminate racial bias, who has done everything short of playing with the numbers, cannot simply discard a promotional list based purely on the racial make-up of the list. Employers must have a strong basis in evidence to conclude that a selection process is racially flawed.  To throw a list out requires something beyond proof that the 80% rule was violated.

The Ricci court concluded that New Haven lacked such a strong basis in evidence. How Tinney, et al expect a court to rule otherwise is puzzling, but we will have to wait and see.

Incidentally, down Rt. 95 a few miles, FDNY is battling a case of disparate impact discrimination of truly historic proportions. A little known fact: blacks fared better on FDNY’s hiring test (which was struck down by Judge Nicholas Garaufis) than did blacks on New Haven’s promotional test (which was upheld). The black pass rate on FDNY’s test was 66.6% of the white pass rate, compared to New Haven’s 62.1 and 58.5%.

To see the complaint: Tinney Complaint

More on the story.

Posted in Civil Suit, Constitutional Rights, Discrimination, Politics, You Can't Make This Stuff Up

Tagged , , , ,

News Media Catches Up With FDNY EMS Officer’s Discrimination Suit

Several EMS and New York news sources reported today that a female EMS lieutenant with FDNY has filed a race discrimination suit against the city. Lt. Valarie Brancato actually filed the suit on June 24, 2011. What occurred recently (September 30th to be exact) was that the city of New York answered her complaint by denying all of her allegations and asserting 12 separate defenses.

The timing of the recent news interest in this four month old story is curious. It coincides with considerable media attention on the FDNY race discrimination case being handled by Judge Nicholas Garaufis. Judge Garaufis has ordered FDNY to hire 3 minorities for every 5 new hires, and awarded millions of dollars in reparations to past minority applicants.

Lt. Brancato’s suit consists of 14 counts, including allegations of Federal and state race discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, and disability discrimination under state law. Some of her allegations sound unfortunately all too familiar, in particular – fellow students, firefighters and EMS personnel engaging in hazing and harassment in the presence of instructors and officers, who did nothing to stop or punish the behavior.

Consider the following allegation from the complaint:

“15. While Plaintiff was in paramedic school she was subjected to harassment based upon her race by white male classmates, including but not limited to: being asked if she would go to their homes to clean their windows; being subjected to gestures that made fun of the size of the lips of African Americans; being subjected to a fellow classmate wearing a gorilla mask in class and saying that it was what African Americans looked like; being subjected to two fellow classmates wearing white hoods with cutouts for their eyes and nose.

16. The instructor was aware of the comments and treatment of Plaintiff and did nothing to stop it or alleviate it.”

That issue is a pet peeve of mine. Many officers believe that if the victim of pranks and hazing (whether friendly or mean spirited) does not complain, they do not have to intervene. WRONG! Observing such conduct and doing nothing is condoning the conduct!

Lt. Brancato’s biggest problem may be the 300 day rule for filing discrimination claims under Federal law. Allegations of discrimination must be filed within 300 days of their occurrence. Some of her allegations go back to 1986, when she was first hired. However, when discrimination is so pervasive that it constitutes “a continuous pattern and practice” a court may consider acts that occurred outside the 300 days under the continuing violation doctrine.

Here is a copy of the complaint.  Brancato Complaint

Here is a copy of the FDNY’s answer. Brancato Answer

Here is a news story about the case.

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

Tagged , , ,

Racism Alleged in West Memphis FD

Some angry words and threats of litigation are fueling a dispute over promotions in the West Memphis Fire Department.

Posted in Discrimination

Tagged , ,

DC Fire Sued for Race Discrimination

Last Friday, October 15, 2010, 31 DC firefighters filed suit against the department leadership alleging racism and discrimination. The lawsuit claims that black firefighters have been disciplined, treated unfairly, denied promotions, and subjected to a hostile work environment based on race. The group is seeking the court to award them class action status to represent nearly 1000 black DC firefighters.

Named in the lawsuit are the District of Columbia,  Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, Fire Chief Dennis L. Rubin, and Assistant Fire Chiefs Lawrence Schultz and Brian Lee. It alleges systematic racial discrimination within the Department, claiming that black employees face harsher discipline, are promoted less often, and confront a hostile work environment imposed by white supervisors.

The lawsuit names at least 10 white firefighters accused or convicted of various misconduct and compares their discipline with that given to black firefighters who committed similar offenses. The suit includes an allegation related to the recently publicized naked cooking incident.

The suit acknowledges the fact that more than half the firefighters in the DC Fire EMS are  African American, but claims that since October 2007 there has been increased incidence of senior white officers creating a climate of fear and intimidation towards black firefighters of all ranks.

The suit claims that "The Department deliberately allowed the predominantly African American 2006 list to expire in order to promote white firefighters" and that in 2010 white officers received “unlawful coaching”.

Here is a copy of the complaint. Download Burton v DC

Posted in Civil Suit, Constitutional Rights, Discrimination

Tagged ,

Judge Blocks FDNY From Hiring 300 Probies

Controversial Judge Nicholas Garaufis has dropped another depth charge on the FDNY, blocking the department from hiring 300 new firefighter recruits. Judge Garaufis has previosuly ruled that FDNY purposefully discriminated against minority applicants in its earlier tests. The proposed 300 new firefighters would have come from a brand new testing process.

In his latest decision he said the city offered no proof that the new test was free from discrimination or sufficiently job related to pass muster. Interestingly, 35% of the new class would have been minority candidates. However, under a previous order Judge Garaufis ruled that 3 of every 5 new hires be a minority as a remedy for past discrimination.

Posted in Civil Suit, Discrimination

Tagged , ,

Black Firefighters Sue Local 22, Philadelphia Firefighters

A group of black Philadelphia firefighters filed suit on November 11, 2009 against their union, IAFF Local 22, alleging race discrimination. The group, named the Club Valiants, is seeking class action status on behalf of aproximately 500 African-American firefighters in Philadelphia.

The suit alleges that the union does not fairly represent the interests of black firefighters, and has been "racially harassing and abusive". Among the specific allegations, the suit cited the fact that the union's internet message board has been used to mock and denigrate blacks.

According to an article in Philly.com, a related issue in the suit is the involvement of a group referred to as CAFFA. Philly.com reported that sources in Philadelphia claim the group's name is "Concerned American Fire Fighters Association", but in the past CAFFA stood for "Caucasian American Fire Fighters Association". The suit alleges that at least three of the union officials in the Philadelphia firefighters union are members of CAFFA. CAFFA and the city of Philadelphia are also named in the suit.

Posted in Civil Suit, Discrimination, Labor Law

Tagged , ,

Camden NJ Settles Discrimination Claims for $1.15 Million

The City of Camden, New Jersey settled an eight year old race discrimination suit, as well as a three year old discrimination suit with the same plaintiffs, who are deputy chiefs in the Camden Fire Department. The settlement is reported to be approximately $1.15 million, and follows a Federal District Court jury verdict from 2004 that was in favor of the plaintiffs for over $1 million.

 

The plaintiffs, both black and both deputy chiefs, alleged they had been forced to endure a hostile work environment, and were denied overtime and promotions based on their race.

 

As reported by The Philadelphia Inquirer, the settlement includes a requirement that the fire chief,  Joseph Marini, retire this year, and that another deputy chief would retire next year. Camden fire officers would also receive racial sensitivity training.  The paper was also reporting that the City Council was seeking to borrow the entire settlement amount.

 

Some additional Links:

 

Firehouse

 

Philly.com

Posted in Civil Suit, Discrimination, Municipal Liability

Tagged , ,