Sex Discrimination Or Legitimate Disciplinary Termination of a Probationary Employee
Was it the lie she told that got her fired, or was the lie just a convenient excuse to get rid of a female firefighter who forced her way on the job to begin with? That is the issue at the center of a lawsuit filed last week in the US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
Victoria Bozic was fired by the city of Washington Fire Department on March 5, 2009, shortly after she misrepresented where she lived during an alleged interrogation about her residency. Just six months earlier Bozic had been hired through a settlement of her claims that she had not been hired in 2008 because she was pregnant. The city also gave her a $20,000 settlement.
Bozic was the department’s first female firefighter, and the fact it took a complaint to the EEOC about being passed over for employment – seems to give some credibility to her allegations that she has been singled out for special scrutiny. On the other hand, should a fire department be saddled with an employee with a propensity to ignore things like residency requirements, and forced to grant her a free pass when she is caught fibbing?
So many thoughts on this case…
Interrogation, eh? Did they waterboard her or threaten her with Gitmo? Can any question posed by a chief officer to a probie be considered an interrogation? Or did she feel like it was an interrogation because she had something to hide?
I’d be curious to see how her job evals/reports were going. If they can demonstrate she had been regularly counseled for inadequate performance or had demonstrated incompetence, they will be far ahead of her. Unfortunately, few company officers want to be the bad guy and they write cookie-cutter evals that are “good” for everyone. She may be able to make it interesting if her evals were either very good or very bad.
Good evals=she was doing fine and doesn’t deserve to be fired for something no one else has been fired for.
Bad evals=discrimination and a hostile work environment.
Bottom line-A probationary employee lied about her residency, which is a condition of employment. Unless she can show that others have done the same without repercussions, she should be sunk.
John
Good perspective and points. I believe she is alleging that no one has ever been disciplined for a residency infraction before – so she was singled out for special scrutiny.
Also interrogation is the term used in the suit and newspaper articles about the case. To me an interrogation occurs when a firefighter who is accused or suspected of wrongdoing is ordered to answer questions posed by a superior officer as part of an investigation of that wrongdoing. Waterboarding is not necessary.
Can any question posed by a chief to a probie be an interrogation? No. It has to be part of an investigation into wrongdoing, not a general question like “How are you?”, “How much air do you have left”, etc. The line is not always black and white – as the cases show. But general questions unrelated to any wrongdoing would not constitute an interrogation.
What is the current basis, in this day, for residency requirements? I can understand that a smaller department may require for emergency call back situations or maybe a civil-service requirement? living in an affluent community would certainly limit your pool of eligible recruits or the ability to retain them over time. Over the years it seems to be required then removed over and over. Is it public perception that with residency the individual would, in turn, contribute back to the local tax base?
Jason
I suppose it depends upon one’s perspective. Some may view the question of residency requirements as whether an employer has the right to place reasonable restrictions on employees. Others may view the same question as one of fundamental rights – that where a person chooses to live is as basic a human right as freedom of speech and right to vote…. inherent in the very concept of liberty.
I see both sides – employer rights versus employee rights. And I too have seen residency requirements come, go, return and leave again as the public and politicians struggle with the right balance.
Personally I’d rather see incentives for residency rather than draconian mandates – if you want employees to live it town make it attractive to them somehow. Tax incentives, possibly low interest mortages from pension investments – something to attract people to live there rather than threats of being fired if you don’t.
Let me put it another way: if the only way you can get employees to live in your community is to put an enconomic gun to their head – you probably have some serious issues that are keeping the people you want in your community, out.