Firefighter’s Marriage Violates Nepotism Policy
A firefighter in Columbus, Mississippi has been transferred out of the fire department because he married the niece of a fellow firefighter, resulting in a violation of the city’s nepotism policy.
Jonathan Goodman, 25, was married on September 27, 2014 to the niece of Herbert Tedford, who is also a Columbus firefighter. Goodman had been with Columbus Fire & Rescue for 18 months and faced possible termination earlier this week at a hearing before the city council.
At issue is the city’s nepotism policy that states:
- The employment of relatives, as defined herein, and individuals who are involved in dating relationships, as defined herein, in the same department of the City of Columbus may cause serious conflicts of interest, and may also result in a violation of the State nepotism law and this Policy. Such employment would also result in perceived problems with favoritism and affect negatively the morale of other employees.
- In addition to claims of partiality and favorable treatment at work, nepotism violations and the perceived ethical issues relating from such perception, and personal conflicts from outside the work environment, can also be carried over into day-to-day working relationships and are therefore to be avoided.
- Nepotism occurs when any person employed by the city shall occupy a position in which he/she will be directly working for or supervising a relative or person with whom he/she is in a dating relationship.
- In cases where a conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest arises because of the relationship between employees, even if there is no authority or line of reporting involved, the employees may be separated by reassignment or terminated from employment to avoid personal conflicts to be carried over in the day-to-day working relationships and to avoid the appearance of impropriety, favoritism or a negative effect on morale.
Goodman and Tedford are reportedly the same rank and work on different shifts in different stations. Nevertheless, city attorney Jeff Turnage claims Goodman’s marriage violates the nepotism policy, a topic the city council discussed at length Tuesday evening.
While it was initially reported that the council voted to terminate Goodman, the council voted unanimously to transfer him to the police department. Goodman has reportedly said he does not want to work for the police department.
Here is a copy of the city’s nepotism and conflict of interest policy: Nepotism Policy
Seems like a pretty strict policy. We have brothers, sisters, father – son, and husband wife in my department.
I understand the concern that they are trying to address through the policy – but to prohibit family members from being in the same department is not the best way to address it. In fact – I cannot think of a more oppressive way to address concerns about nepotism. There are better ways.
Why do I think the transfer to the PD is a way to get the guy to resign, thereby “preventing” a wrongful termination suit for canning him outright?
I have a feeling that if challenged, that policy wouldn’t stand up in court. especially one that goes that far as to include personnel of the same rank assigned to different areas of operation on a different schedule, and also the fact that it doesnt involve an immediate family member. He married the niece of a firefighter, so that would make him the… nephew-in-law, I’ve never heard of that title before, and i’m thinking its a far stretch to call them related.
Here in the greater Phoenix area, if we had that type of policy,. there would be dozens upon dozens of firefighters losing their jobs, probably upwards of 100 or more. Hell before he retired from Phoenix Fire, Alan Brunacini, then fire chief had all of his children working for Phoenix Fire. 2 sons and one daughter, one was a BC one a captain and his daughter is a firefighter. There are numerous firefighting families spread across many departments around here.
Its pretty much a given that if you bare the name or likeness of someone already on the job, you’re pretty much golden, they may not take you the first time around, because they have to at least try to look impartial. But come round 2 or 3 and you’ll be wearing a red shirt.
Wally – I agree the law is foolish, but unfortunately such laws are routinely upheld.
I wouldn’t think it would pass the constitutional muster. but i’m not a lawyer either.
I’d think he could challenge it just based on the fact that neither the situation or the law meets the definition of nepotism. I just really have a feeling that, with the right legal support, he’d prevail in federal court. He needs to tap an organization like the ACLU or a similar group that has the resources and experience and will fight the good fight for him.
Well then you will definitely like this decision from Utah: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1607&context=dlj
And there are other states that agree based on their state constitution. But the US Supreme Court has not been willing to go that far, nor have many states.
Parsons v. County of Del Norte, 728 F.2d 1234, 1237 (9th
Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 846, 105 S.Ct. 158, 83 L.Ed.2d 95 (1984) (anti-nepotism rule is not unconstitutional infringement of right to marry); Cutts v. Fowler, 692 F.2d 138, 141 (D.C.Cir.1982) (FCC anti-nepotism rule upheld as not
violating career civil servant’s right to marry); Keckeisen v. Independent School District 612, 509 F.2d 1062, 1065 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 833, 96 S.Ct.57, 46 L.Ed.2d 51 (1975) (upheld rule prohibiting one spouse from serving as
administrator if other was a teacher); Miller v. C.A. Muer Corp., 420 Mich. 355, 365, 362 N.W.2d 650, 654 (1984) (private industry anti-nepotism policy upheld); Cybyske v. Independent School District No. 196, 347 N.W.2d 256, 263 (Minn.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 933, 105 S.Ct. 330, 83 L.Ed.2d 266 (1984) (anti-nepotism policy does not violate right to marry); Hamilton v. Board of Trustees of Oconee County, 282 S.C. 519, 524, 319 S.E.2d 717, 720 (Ct. App.1984) (anti-nepotism policy does not violate right to marry); Townshend v. Board of Education, 183 W.Va.
418, 422, 396 S.E.2d 185, 189 (1990) (anti-spouse rule upheld between married teacher and administrator).
The challenge remains recognizing that in some situations nepotism should be prohibited (spouse supervising a spouse; father interviewing son for a promotion; etc.) without having a draconian rule like we see in the Columbus case. A reasonable balance should be struck – but trying to strike that balance through litigation – and in particular through constitutional challenges – is IMHO problematic.
On the other hand if that is all you got… you play the cards you are dealt. It would appear FF Goodman has things teed up if he chooses to make a constitutional challenge.