Denver Firefighter Claims ADA Violation For PTSD
A Denver firefighter has filed suit claiming the department’s handling of his post-traumatic stress disorder violated the Americans With Disabilities Act, and that the reaction of his officers to his military reserve commitment violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act.
David Perez filed suit last week in US District Court for the District of Colorado against the City and County of Denver. He is a nine year veteran of the Denver Fire Department and combat veteran with eight years of active duty with the US Marine Corp. Perez, who served two tours in Iraq, remains a member of the Marine Corp. Reserve.
According to the complaint, Perez was suffering from PTSD in 2011. As other personnel became aware of his condition Perez claims he was subjected him to a hostile work environment, emotional distress and humiliation. He eventually accepted a transfer to fire prevention to get away from the hostility. The complaint states: “The DFD did not take the proper actions to ensure that the diagnosis and condition of David Perez having Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) was safeguarded and kept confidential and that Mr. Perez was not discriminated against due to his condition.”
The suit also claims that when a training opportunity with the Marines became available in 2012/2013 that required five (5) months of leave from the fire department, his supervisors created a hostile work environment for him. Quoting from the complaint:
Captain Derek Warlum questioned Mr. Perez’s position as a firefighter and had stated “what does he want to do, be a firefighter or be a reservist” which violates the USERRA Act of 1994 (as codified in title 38, United States Code, section §4311 and Employees Benefits as codified in title 20, United States Code, sections § 1002.18-32
The suit seeks “damages for emotional distress, humiliation, loss of income and enjoyment of life, and other pain and suffering on all claims”, plus exemplary/punitive damages, costs and attorneys fees.
Here is a copy of the complaint: Perez v Denver.154452.1.0
It would seem to me that asking for a five MONTH leave might be asking a bit much. Obviously can’t hire a replacement, and five months of overtime isn’t fair to the taxpayer. Hell. I’d have been inclined to ask the same question.
No, I disagree with you.
Mr. David Perez has both a commitment to the US Military to defend our Country and the citizens of Denver against the ravages of fire.
His military duties superceed is DFD duties and he should have been given all the support he needed rather than being being denied assistance.
This issue isn’t only a DFD issue, but rather one in many cities affecting all other public service workers.
The bottom line is USSERA was written to prevent issues just like this.
So, while we stayed at home, he went off to serve his military duties as required.
Reserve called to active duty deployments can last for 18 months. Who knows, Maybe he still wanted to serve, but due to ptsd he needed a new specialty. Let’s be glad there are those who choose to join and serve,and have the law protection of having a job when they come home. You should never ask a service member to choose between serving your Country and job. A member who chooses to sit on a couch instead of working out, then hurting their back on a call could cost way more than 5 months. No one ever wants to make a sturn fuss on that. This lawsuit will cost a whole lot more than 5 months of overtime. Not to mention public opinion affected by the insensitive handling of a veteran with PTSD that was deemed fit for duty. Sad
It was a TRAINING opportunity, not a deployment. These duties should not supercede his profession or his duty to the citizens of Denver.
Would the military give him a five-month leave for a training program in the civilian world?
USERRA states that reservists are entitled to take whatever military leave is necessary to comply with their orders. Training, deployment, drill, the purpose of his call to duty is irrelevant.
From the USERRA poster that should be on the wall at every employer:
You have the right to be reemployed in your civilian job if you leave that
job to perform service in the uniformed service and:
✩ you ensure that your employer receives advance written or verbal
notice of your service;
✩ you have five years or less of cumulative service in the uniformed
services while with that particular employer;
✩ you return to work or apply for reemployment in a timely manner
after conclusion of service; and
✩ you have not been separated from service with a disqualifying
discharge or under other than honorable conditions.
And for Denver to cry about it is ridiculous. They have plenty of people to backfill his spot. My Dept is 10% the size of Denver and we had 3 of us on military leave at one time.
Since this guy was a nine-year veteran of the FD, the second bullet point you list invalidates your argument. If the five years pertains to military service, he was an 8-year veteran, so it is still inapplicable.
Don’t get me wrong, I applaud Perez for his USMC time. It’s not easy becoming a Marine, and it is something to be proud of. But under the circumstances as laid out in the article, he was not covered by Employer Support, and requesting five months leave for training would place an unreasonable burden on the taxpayers.
Having plenty of people to back-fill is not the point, either. It is the burden of having the money to pay OVERTIME to backfill that is in question.
Yes, we should support the military, but I think this guy was pushing the envelope too much.
Oh, and he was not ORDERED to take the training, he was OFFERED an opportunity… big difference.
To clear up some confusion, Mr. Perez’s training was not an option. It was required because of him joining a new Marine Corps unit in his home town of Denver Colorado. The training was for his new MOS school he was required to go to in order to continue his military services in the reserves. There seems to be more to this story than what can be made public…
If the training *was* required, obviously that puts a different light on things, but that was not included — or even inferred — in the article as posted.
With some additional insight on this topic because it has drawn some curiosity and various opinions, Mr. Perez did not cost his department any addition expenses with causing Overtime by backfilling his position while he was gone. Other firefighters stepped up and covered his shifts while he was gone away on training where Mr. Perez is currently paying those shifts back… this may change the tone of this discussion a bit, one would think.
With some additional insight on this topic because it has drawn some curiosity and various opinions, Mr. Perez did not cost his department any addition expenses with causing Overtime by backfilling his position while he was gone. Other firefighters stepped up and covered his shifts while he was gone away on training where Mr. Perez is currently paying those shifts back… The training was for his new MOS school he was required to go to in order to continue his military services in the reserves. this may change the tone of this discussion a bit, one would think.
If it was *required* to meet his obligation, that certainly would change things. The tenor of the initial story indicated the training was, well maybe “optional” is the wrong word, but not mandatory for his position. Likewise, if FF Perez is paying the shifts back (as opposed to the city incurring overtime), that also changes the situation.