?First Amendment violation

[Asyml8r]

Ellencee

Ellencee, as much as I appreciate your interest in this matter and believe you are the "devil's advocate", which holds great value, is commendable. But, as you put it, you certainly seem to be "living in your own little corner in your own little world".

I'm proud of every firefighter this city employs, and this TEAM follows orders. Myself, or the other four members singled out for "punishment" have never neglected our duties, response times, patient care issues, etc... above the good of the public. Every citizen in our community DESERVES the best pre-hospital emergency medical care available, and this department provides it 24/7.

Our "bad behavior as employees" has never prevented us from treating every patient as our own father or mother.

Personal enmities shall not be tolerated, as stated in our contract.

 

[Boxcarbill]

BCB
I understand what you are saying in each post; however, I still do not believe that the poster proved or substantially indicated that a matter of public concern exists. The only issue that I consider to be substantially indicated is that of disgruntled employees.

If a matter of public concern exists and is ignored by the powers that be, then I hope the firefighters would be protected in bringing the issue to the attention of the public. In all reasonable probability, though, in a city where response time and paramedic response fell from 'good' to 'terrible', I sincerely doubt the victims and the families of victims would sit quietly and wait on the firefighters to do something to change the situation.

EC

I'm not certain that I am understanding your argument. You appear to be saying that the quality of paramedic service in a community is not of public interest. You appear to take the position, prove to me first, that there is a problem with the paramedic service and then prove to me that the "powers that be" have ignored that problem and then and only then should the public have any interest in the quality of the city's paramedic service. It the "families of victim" would act if the service fell from "good" to "terrible," then the quality of the paramedic service is a public concern. I rather think that you are interpreting "concern" to mean a "problem" or a "worry" rather than that the subject is one of public interest as opposed to a private matter of interest only to the employees of the fire department. If, however, the speech does involve a matter of public concern, the Government bears the burden of justifying its adverse employment action. Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 388 (1987); 10 see also Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. ___, ___ (1994) (slip op., at 11).

 

[Boxcarbill]

Re: reassignment, extra duties

In reply to Boxcarbill, the second in command of the department has stated to other officers of the department that "those guys", meaning us, "are being punished for signing the petition and they got what they deserved and I don't feel sorry for them at all".

Thanks for your reply and the other information you provided.

The second in command statement that you are being punished for signing the petition does not establish that the discipline was in violation of the employees' right of freedom of speech. It is far more complicated. There is also the balancing of competing interest. To be protected, the speech must be on a matter of public concern, and the employee's interest in expressing themselves on this matter must not be outweighed by any injury the speech could cause to "`the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.'" Connick v. MYERS, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) at 142 (quoting Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist., 391 U.S. 563, 568 (1968)).

 

[ellencee]

To be protected, the speech must be on a matter of public concern, and the employee's interest in expressing themselves on this matter must not be outweighed by any injury the speech could cause to "`the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.'" Connick v. MYERS, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) at 142 (quoting Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist., 391 U.S. 563, 568 (1968)).

Boxcarbill

With the above information, you completely answered my question and addressed any and all concern(s) that I had over the issue as posted by the original poster.

EC

 

[nospecialfx]

BCB
I understand what you are saying in each post; however, I still do not believe that the poster proved or substantially indicated that a matter of public concern exists. The only issue that I consider to be substantially indicated is that of disgruntled employees.

EC

Regardless, it's still a triable issue of fact...

 

[amcfreek]

maybe you should all slip and fall and hurt youre back , then like sue , thiers enough lawyers here....

 

[HomeGuru]

maybe you should all slip and fall and hurt youre back , then like sue , thiers enough lawyers here....

**A: and like maybe you should go back to school and like learn to spell and use proper grammar.

 

[ellencee]

Asyml8r
Even though I appreciate your attempts to insult me, I must point out that I am correct in my thoughts and opinions on your stated situation.

If you are to be protected in your right to free speech (in this matter), you must be speaking on a matter of public concern and not on a matter of disgruntled employees.

You have the resources to answer your own question and I provided you with the location of the necessary tools for doing so.

If you take the time to research the call sheets and compare previous response times and outcomes within specific response locations (or grids) and you find documented proof that delayed response time exists and is negatively impacting the outcome and therefore is of PUBLIC CONCERN, more likely than not you have valid reason to argue or seek protection of free speech. If your results DO NOT 'prove' that the public has been negatively impacted or that the response times and outcomes are not as you 'believe', then you (more likely than not) DO NOT have valid reason to argue or seek protection of 'free speech' (as your speech is that of disgruntled employees).

Albuterol is a dangerous drug; it is not a one-for-all and all-for-one asthma treatment. To place the responsibility of 'diagnosing' asthma and administering Albuterol into the hands of employees working outside of established rules, procedures, policies, etc. is NOT in the best interest of the public. From the information you posted, I see no reason for the paramedics to be denied the availability of Albuterol in their emergency response meds. For me to form a more decisive opinion on the issue of Albuterol, more substantiated information would have to be made available for review and consideration.

You see, even in my own little corner of my own little world the same Constitution is in effect; and, though I speak in non-attorney language, I know there must be 'proof' that a form of speech qualifies as protected free speech. As you provided no 'proof' but just your stated allegations, I sincerely doubted and doubt that your speech qualifies as protected free speech.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

nospecialfx

Regardless, it's still a triable issue of fact...

Duh!

EC

 

[Boxcarbill]

Asyml8r
Even though I appreciate your attempts to insult me, I must point out that I am correct in my thoughts and opinions on your stated situation.

If you are to be protected in your right to free speech (in this matter), you must be speaking on a matter of public concern and not on a matter of disgruntled employees.

You have the resources to answer your own question and I provided you with the location of the necessary tools for doing so.

If you take the time to research the call sheets and compare previous response times and outcomes within specific response locations (or grids) and you find documented proof that delayed response time exists and is negatively impacting the outcome and therefore is of PUBLIC CONCERN, more likely than not you have valid reason to argue or seek protection of free speech. If your results DO NOT 'prove' that the public has been negatively impacted or that the response times and outcomes are not as you 'believe', then you (more likely than not) DO NOT have valid reason to argue or seek protection of 'free speech' (as your speech is that of disgruntled employees).

EC

No, no, no. He doesn't have to prove negative impact for the subject to be of public interest. If thorough research were a requirement before comment could be made, such a requirement would effectively chill all first amendment speech. Like I said at the beginning of this thread, this is too complicated to give a "you win" or "you lose" answer on this forum. The original poster has not asked a simle straight forward legal question but has presented a limited factual patten which is a case. The facts, as presented has triable issues. A trial will determine who wins, at least on the trial court level but it may take going up to the appellate level to get a final answer. But to give readers an insight into what subjects have been determined to be of "public concern" as opposed to a private concern of a disgruntled employee, here are a few examples and the cases in which they were taken. This is by no means an exhaustive list.

The Court held impermissible under the First Amendment the dismissal of a high school teacher for openly criticizing the Board of Education on its allocation of school funds between athletics and education and its methods of informing taxpayers about the need for additional revenue. Pickering v. Board of Education

Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972), arose from the failure to rehire a teacher in the state college system who had testified before committees of the Texas Legislature and had become involved in public disagreement over whether the college should be elevated to 4-year status - a change opposed by the Regents.

A public school teacher was not rehired because, allegedly, he had relayed to a radio station the substance of a memorandum relating to teacher dress and appearance that the school principal had circulated to various teachers. The memorandum was apparently prompted by the view of some in the administration that there was a relationship between teacher appearance and public support for bond issues, the radio station promptly announced the adoption of the dress code as a news item. Mt. Healthy City Board of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977).

Statements concerning the School District's allegedly racially discriminatory policies are a matter of public concern even though a public employee arranges to communicate privately with his employer rather than to express his views publicly. Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District, 439 U.S. 410 (1979).

A data-entry employee in a county Constable's office, was discharged for remarking to a co-worker, after hearing of an attempt on the President's life, "if they go for him again, I hope they get him." The court held that "[t]he content, form, and context of respondent's statement, as revealed by the record, support the threshold conclusion that the statement constitutes speech on a matter of public concern. The statement was made in the course of a conversation addressing the policies of the President's administration, and came on the heels of a news bulletin regarding a matter of heightened public attention: an attempt on the President's life." Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 (1987)

 

[ellencee]

Boxcarbill
I believe the original poster was and is attempting to assess his risk(s) if he continues to operate outside of his employer/employee rules, regulation, policies, and procedures. All I am trying to say is: if he wants to assess the risk of going public, then he should take a look at the facts (the call sheets) and decide if it is a risk he wants to take. If he looks at the facts and there is no evidence to support his stance, then he is taking a big risk in depending on the Constitution to save him from disciplinary actions by his employer.

It is not and has not been my intent to do battle over Free Speech; so at this time, I will withdraw from this thread...hopefully, and with some success at self-control.

EC

 

[Asyml8r]

Lawsuit

Or or about May 30, 2001, the City of blah blah blah, through the blah blah blah Fire Department invited proposals from experienced and qualified organizations interested in providing Advanced Life Support Services (paramedics).

As a result of the invitation to bid the Defendant, City of blah blah blah negotiated and approved an Advanced Life Support contract with the Plaintiff.

On or about December 16, 2002, the Defendant, blah blah blah Ambulance sent an unsolicited letter to the Defendant, City, representing that blah blah blah Ambulance wanted to make an addition to their previously submitted proposal that it would save the Defendant, City of blah blah blah, money by offering training incentives at no cost to the Defendant, City valued at approximately Ten Thousand ($10,000) Dollars as consideration for entering into an interalia Emergency Advanced Life Support contract.

On or about February 1, 2003, the Defendant, City, contacted the Plaintiff to formally terminate the existing contract with the Plaintiff.

On or about April 2003, the Defendant, City invited proposals to bid for the Advanced Life Support Services which now included a provision to provide EMT continuing education and refresher courses to the Fire Department personnel at no cost to the City.

The Defendant, City's knowing and willful requirement of the Request for Proposals to provide renumeration in return for referring or arranging or recommending the purchase of goods or services for which payment may be made by Medicare or certain state programs amount to a violation of M.G.L. Ch. 118E, Sec. 41 and 42 U.S.C. Section 1320a-7b.

Hence, our position. We are being punished for signing a petition by the Chief, who is being sued by the former provider. We allege in the petition that the previous paramedic services were far superior to the current paramedic services. By the way, we have well documented times to substantiate these claims.

Thank you for all your input, it has proven invaluable.

 

[gottaask]

W=O=W

This thread was the most interesting and thought provoking thread that I have had the pleasure of reading on this board.

Again . . . . it bears repeating . . . Wow


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Asyml8r]

still going............

The Chief just ordered that ALL self contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) be removed from the Rescue company (to which we, the petitioners were all assigned by the Chief) effective immediately. The reason.......we do not have the capability to bring in a charged hose line. The fact.............the Rescue company was first on scene in two of the last four fires we had. By the way, rescue (saving human life) is the first priority in ANY fireground operation, the second, a working line, throwing ladders or opening the roof, all tied, depending on who gets there second.

Should we now instruct any person(s) trapped on the second to above floors to "wait a minute, help will be here any minute, we hope" mentality (because if we can't breathe we can't save em')?

Coincidence?.............I think not!!!

ALL of these posts were very enlightening to me and I appreciate all the feedback provided, thank you all in your endeavor to help me.

Sincerely

MA Firefighter

 

[Asyml8r]

scba

Well, there it is, a two alarm fire yesterday with the first arriving unit, the rescue company, without any way to breathe.

I suppose our next con-ed class should be how to properly instruct people to "jump" from their positions until the other companies arrive.

 

[ellencee]

Asyml8r (Borg?)

Are you saying that your unit has been essentially demoted to providing basic EMT services instead of firefighting and victim rescue from site of the fire?

I know you understand the terms you are using, but I am confused about the term 'rescue'.

I don't have any idea why the breathing apparatus would be taken from firefighters who need to enter a burning site and remove people from harm's way--not unless he's hoping you'll rush in and inhale some smoke and heat--seriously, though--not unless it is an unofficial demotion.

EC