Separate Fire Station Facilities For Men and Women
Today’s burning question: Do we have to provide separate sleeping quarters and bathroom facilities for male and female employees?
Answer: I am not aware of any requirement that fire departments provide separate sleeping and bathroom facilities for men and women. Having said that, would you want your non-firefighter wife or daughter sharing sleeping, bathroom, and shower facilities with the men they work with? If not then why would you even entertain the idea that things can somehow be different for fire departments?
Providing separate sleeping, bathroom and shower facilities is a wise move that can head off a host of headaches down the road. The lack of separate facilities for women has figured prominently in many sexual discrimination and harassment lawsuits. While cases have stopped short of saying the lack of separate facilities is per se discrimination, is it a factor that juries may consider when evaluating just how sincere city officials are when they claim they do not discriminate against women.
An attorney representing a female in a discrimination/harassment case is likely to argue that the lack of separate facilities in 2016 is evidence of the department’s refusal to make accommodations for women in the workplace. It undercuts the credibility of the city’s witnesses. You know the saying: actions speak louder than words. For the life of me, I do not know how to counter that argument.
I think you have the potential to counter the argument IF the agency is small enough that making accommodations for the separate sexes would “break the bank” of the agency. I would think that such an argument would only work if there weren’t other discriminatory factors (which probably negates the point).
Define “small enough”. A small department loses a discrimination suit, and then still must make the accommodations. Kind of a case of you can pay now, or pay later. It makes better sense economically to be proactive, than reactive.
I agree with what you are saying but I have worked with departments where it simply would have been impossible. In those situations I wonder how much latitude the court would give. Maybe none, but I think it almost has to be a consideration.
James – keep in mind the context in which we are talking about this. We are not talking about an interview with the media, or making a case to the taxpayers. We are talking about this playing a role in a lawsuit where a female firefighter is alleging she is being sexually harassed, that the fire department leadership is either opposed to women in the department or at best is unable or unwilling to address the issues.
Against those allegations the fire chief gets on the witness stand and testifies that he and his department are open to women, that they have done everything they can to address the concerns of the plaintiff, and they have done their best to prevent sexual harassment/discrimination.
Now comes the cross examination where the fire chief tries not to sound like a hypocrite, but explain that in 2016 they could not afford separate facilities….. nor 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009,… 1990… 1980….
How do you do that??? In all those years there never was enough money to create separate facilities??? Must not have been a very big priority then???
Perhaps a well-intentioned chief will say “Well we didn’t have women back then”… thinking that is a good answer… and the attorney says “Oh, so that was back when you actually did exclude women for the department, correct?”
Again, you are not going to win the argument in this forum with even an average trial attorney, let alone a skilled attorney. Maybe you can win that argument in the media and to the public… you can probably win the argument in the firehouse… but not in court. It will severely undercut the chief’s credibility with the jury. When that happens – even non-meritorious cases could prevail.
I know of one friend who for over twenty five years had to contend with a single restroom at one of her stations, in the San Francisvo Bay Area.
She finally sued the city, and I believe won the case.
The city also hired three more women into its ranks.
But this was first new hire of women during this period. It’s not like their we not candidates that they could have hired as they are near a community college fire academy site.
I know Janet Wilmont publishes her new fire station design articles and pictures every year.
Rather than “sticking ones head in the sand” get with the program and upgrade your facilities.
You both make good points and I was thinking from an angle similar to the station that I used to work in, but in reality I cannot see how we would have defended it in court. I will say that it worked and devoid of any other harassment, it was never a problem. But it could be and there is no good answer as to how what you say in court.