ADVERTISEMENT
Legal Lesson of the Month: Mich. Dept. Must Face Harassment Claim
EMS can be full of interesting and tricky legal scenarios. While you can’t have an attorney ride with you, it behooves providers to have at least some familiarity with the principles, precedents, and major issues of EMS law. To that end EMS World is pleased to offer the EMS Legal Lesson of the Month.
These cases are presented by prominent attorneys in the EMS field. This month’s comes from Larry Bennett, program chair for fire science and emergency management at the University of Cincinnati. Bennett’s department publishes a monthly Fire & EMS and Safety Law newsletter; subscribe to that by e-mailing Lawrence.bennett@uc.edu or read the latest edition here. Find this case and more in his newsletter archive.
Case: Richard Cadoura v. Flat Rock (Mich.) Fire Department, et al.
Decided: September 2021
Verdict: The Michigan Court of Appeals held (3–0) in an unpublished decision that the trial court judge improperly dismissed Cadoura’s lawsuit because of “simple teasing” during the firefighter’s 15 months of probation with the fire department.
Facts: Cadoura describes himself as an Arab-American—he is an American citizen of Palestinian and Middle Eastern descent. A licensed and seasoned paramedic, Cadoura began working as a firefighter for the fire department in December 2016, and he was terminated during the early evening hours of March 23, 2018. There was evidence the plaintiff failed to complete a probationary training program despite several reminders and opportunities to do so and that he had also acted in an insubordinate manner toward a sergeant the night before and morning of his firing. The probationary program failure and acts of insubordination were the reasons given by Assistant Fire Chief (AFC) Mark Hammond for plaintiff’s termination.
The plaintiff testified that during his 15-month tenure with the fire department, a firefighter sent a group text message of an image of a camel with a caption stating, “This is how [plaintiff] responds to the call backs.” This same firefighter also questioned the parentage of the plaintiff’s son because of the child’s darker skin tone. Additionally, according to the plaintiff, the firefighter referred to the plaintiff as a “sand n****r.”
On at least five occasions when the plaintiff was driving the fire truck for his training time, Arabic music was blasted over the truck’s PA system by a coworker. The plaintiff testified that AFC Hammond witnessed the conduct regarding Arabic music, laughed about it, pulled out his cell phone and recorded it, and shared it on social media. Another firefighter gave the plaintiff a camel figurine that the plaintiff placed in his station mailbox, and a week or two later the plaintiff found the figurine with its head and legs chopped off and an American flag sticking out of it. The plaintiff further testified that when he washed towels for his unit, his coworkers told him that towels were for cleaning and not to wear on one’s head. The plaintiff also indicated that a fellow firefighter informed the plaintiff that the fire truck was not a camel.
The trial court concluded that the circumstances did not “ris[e] to a level of a hostile work environment.” The court explained: “Simple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents, unless extremely serious, will not amount to discriminatory charges in the terms and conditions of the employment… Plaintiff does put forth incidents [that were] troubling, teasing, and his own testimony establishes that it did not amount to a change in terms and conditions of this employment. And…music playing and the gift and a text of a camel [don’t] rise to a level under the standard put forth in the applicable statutory and court precedent to show a hostile environment [or] adverse employment action based on race.”
The appeals court concluded the trial court erred by determining as a matter of law that there was no hostile work environment.
Key quote: “[The] plaintiff presented evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether there was an intimidating, hostile, and offensive work environment… In conjunction with that evidence, there was plaintiff’s testimony regarding his work conditions and his claimed mistreatment and harassment… We conclude that the trial court erred by determining as a matter of law that there was no hostile work environment.”
Legal lesson: Acts of “simple teasing” can be very harmful, and officers have an obligation to prevent a hostile work atmosphere.