May/June 2005 Issue Number 71

Is a monthly electronic newsletter which links current events and issues to the daily challenges faced by fire and emergency services managers. Current topics in the areas of leadership development, workplace diversity, change management, and conflict resolution will be discussed.

We hope that you find the information here useful and provocative.
Let us know what you think! If you'd like to subscribe to the newsletter, please enter your email address in the box below.

Sign up for our free newsletter,
Consider This...

FDIC (Fire Department Instructors Conference) West June 4-8, 2005, Los Angeles, CA. (Note that this is a new location and month for this conference).   

Fire-Rescue International August 9-13, 2005 Denver, CO. This is a new location for this conference. Linda Willing will be teaching a pre-conference seminar on August 9th entitled "The Art of Getting Along." Go to www.iafc.org for more information about the conference.

Rethinking Protected Class 

Many people think of the term "protected class" as only applying to someone else. There is an assumption among some that when you talk about race and sex being protected classes, it means race other than white, and sex other than male. But this is not the case, nor has it ever been. 

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act identified five categories, or so-called protected classes on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate in the workplace. These five classifications are race, sex, ethnicity or national origin, color, and religion. Since the beginning, these categories have always been inclusive of all races, all national origins, etc., not just those seen as minorities. It has always been possible for someone who was being discriminated against because of his race being white or his sex being male to file suit under Title VII. 

Such cases are a small proportion of those seen by the EEOC, but they have always existed. The EEOC estimates that 8-15% of all sexual harassment complaints are filed by men, with the greatest increase accounted for by male-on-male harassment complaints. Recently, 43 white employees won a $1.8 million judgment against their employer, the New Orleans District Attorney's Office. They successfully argued in court that they had been discriminated against because of their race after a black district attorney took office and fired them, replacing them with black employees. 

The bitterness that some people feel toward civil rights law is sometimes based in the belief that this law is only for a few and not for all. But this is a false belief. True, it is less likely that someone would be discriminated against when he or she is a member of the dominant group versus someone who is a minority. But it can happen, and when it does, the law is there to protect that person's rights the same as anyone else's. 

Source: The Associated Press, March 31, 2005 

 

The Supreme Court recently ruled that those who make complaints under Title IX have protection against retaliation, similar to those who complain under Title VII. Title IX bars discrimination in educational institutions. The case concerned a coach who was fired after he complained that his girls' basketball team was forced to use equipment and facilities that were inferior to what the boys used. 

Source: USA Today March 30, 2005 

 

 

Privacy and Employee Medical Conditions 

A New York federal court has recently refused to grant a motion to dismiss in a case filed by an employee who said that the union illegally disclosed medical information about him to other employees. The decision let stand the man's complaint based on alleged ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) violations. 

John Doe (a pseudonym) has worked for UPS since 1989 and is a member of Teamsters Local 804. Mr. Doe is HIV positive and suffers from AIDS. In 1995, Mr. Doe was working as a driver, but asked to be reassigned to an indoor position as a reasonable accommodation for his medical condition. UPS granted the request and transferred Mr. Doe to a clerk's position. 

In 2001, the union allegedly disclosed confidential information about Mr. Doe's medical condition to his colleagues. Mr. Doe claimed that this disclosure deprived him of equal employment opportunities and adversely affected his status in the company. These claims were the basis of his ADA complaint with the EEOC. The union's basis for dismissal, which was denied, was that the EEOC failed to allege that the union had obtained information regarding Mr. Doe's medical condition in a manner protected by the ADA. 

This case brings up several important points. The first is that unions, along with employers, are subject to liability under Title VII and subsequent legislation such as the ADA and ADEA (Age Discrimination in Employment Act.) Second, even when a medical condition may be common knowledge, official disclosure of medical information can create liability not just for the one who discloses it, but also for the employer. 

Source: Infectious Disease Litigation Reporter February 18, 2005

© Linda F. Willing, 2005