Court Rejects Claims of Disability Discrimination by Indianapolis Firefighter

An Indianapolis firefighter who was terminated in 2020 for being absent without leave, has lost his federal court lawsuit. S.N. claimed the department violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plus committed wrongful termination, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent supervision, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The suit was filed in November, 2020 in US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. As explained in the decision:

  • During his employment with IFD, N suffered from anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder.
  • At the academy, he was bullied and ostracized by other trainees and his superiors.
  • This abuse continued even after he completed the academy.
  • On August 2, 2018, N was physically injured during a training exercise.
  • As a result, he could not immediately return to work.
  • On January 22, 2019, N attended a Fitness for Duty Evaluation.
  • The IFD’s physician made inflammatory comments during the evaluation, so N left the evaluation early.
  • N notified IFD Deputy Chief of Administration R. that he had ended the evaluation early.
  • Chief R suspended N for twenty-four hours for failing to complete the Fitness for Duty Evaluation.
  • N was deemed unfit to return to full duty due to both his physical injuries and his psychological conditions, so N was placed on limited duty.
  • He began his limited duty on June 17, 2019.
  • N experienced difficulties with his anxiety, depression, and PTSD while on limited duty.
  • Yet he never requested any type of accommodation during his employment with the IFD.
  • N does not recall when, but he took leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act on one occasion to assist his ailing mother.
  • N’s depression caused him to be late for or miss work multiple days while on limited duty.
  • On August 13, 2019, he failed to report for duty without notifying any of his superior officers.
  • The next day, Chief R suspended him for forty-eight hours and emailed N about the suspension.
  • All of Chief R’s emails to N were sent to N’s official IFD email address.
  • N was scheduled to return to work on August 22, 2019, but again failed to report without notice.
  • Chief R suspended N for one hundred twenty hours on August 27, 2019.
  • On September 6, 2019, Chief R notified N that he would be recommending his termination.
  • Around that time, N spoke with Chief R and IFD Chief A about the difficulties caused by his disability.
  • In response, Chief A recommended that N seek inpatient treatment at a facility in Florida called Florida House Experience, and N received time off to seek treatment there.
  • Around the time N was in treatment, he changed addresses.
  • Although N gave Florida House his new address and believed that Florida House would relay that information to the IFD, he did not directly notify the IFD of the change.
  • N completed treatment with Florida House in early November 2019 and returned to Indianapolis.
  • Florida House recommended that N seek additional treatment at a facility in Indianapolis, but when N reached out to the recommended facility… N was “turned away.”
  • IFD learned that N completed his treatment both through a telephone call from N to Chief A and through a letter from Florida House to the IFD.
  • However, after returning from Florida, N never reported back to work and never contacted anyone at the IFD about returning to work.
  • Chief R emailed N instructing him to attend a meeting on December 6, 2019, but N did not respond to the message or attend the meeting.
  • Chief R then sent a letter to N notifying him of a one hundred twenty-hour suspension and instructing him to attend a meeting on December 30, 2019.
  • But because N had not updated his address with IFD, the letter was sent to an outdated address, and N did not receive the letter or attend the December 30, 2019 meeting.
  • Chief R then recommended N’s termination.
  • N was terminated from the IFD for being absent without leave and failing to maintain his EMT certification, which was required for his position, effective February 27, 2020.
  • N alleges the Defendants discriminated against him on the basis of his mental disability (anxiety, depression, and PTSD), failed to accommodate his disability in violation of Title I of the ADA, and discriminated against him in his use and enjoyment of the IFD’s facilities in violation of Title III of the ADA.
  • He further alleges the Defendants’ discrimination and failure to accommodate created a hostile work environment.
  • He argues that by failing to take affirmative steps to identify and accommodate his disability, the Defendants violated the Rehabilitation Act and evidenced a widespread practice that violates the constitutional rights of mentally disabled employees under Section 1983.
  • N also asserts state law tort claims for wrongful termination, negligent supervision, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
  • Defendants seek summary judgment on N’s ADA, hostile work environment, and Rehabilitation Act claims because N was not “qualified” for his job and because a fire station is not a “place of public accommodation.”
  • They contend that N cannot show a discriminatory policy, custom, or practice under Section 1983.
  • As for N’s state law tort claims, Defendants argue they should be dismissed because N failed to serve a notice of his tort claims as required by the ITCA.

The court concluded that regular attendance at work is an essential function of being a firefighter in Indianapolis, and that N cannot establish his ability to meeting this requirement even with an accommodation. Thus, his ADA disability claim failed. The court rejected his discrimination claims concluding that even if N could show he was subjected to a hostile work environment, he could not establish that it was on account of his disability. His § 1983 claim was rejected because N could not establish a policy, custom, or practice that violated his constitutional rights. The state law claims were rejected because he failed to comply with the notice requirements of the tort claims act.

Here is a copy of the decision:

About Curt Varone

Curt Varone has over 45 years of fire service experience and 35 as a practicing attorney licensed in both Rhode Island and Maine. His background includes 29 years as a career firefighter in Providence (retiring as a Deputy Assistant Chief), as well as volunteer and paid on call experience. He is the author of two books: Legal Considerations for Fire and Emergency Services, (2006, 2nd ed. 2011, 3rd ed. 2014, 4th ed. 2022) and Fire Officer's Legal Handbook (2007), and is a contributing editor for Firehouse Magazine writing the Fire Law column.
x

Check Also

Court Refuses to Dismiss Due Process Demotion Case

A Wisconsin fire captain who was demoted in 2021 when the city reorganized its promotional process, got a mixed decision in his federal court lawsuit. Richard Haffner claims that Fire Chief Joshua Bell, the City of New Richmond, and the City’s Police and Fire Commission violated his due process rights by removing him as a captain without cause or a hearing.

UK Parliament Questions Fire Service Leader on Institutional Racism Claim

As have many fire departments in the UK and Canada recently, the Dorset and Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Authority has been in the news relative to allegations of institutional racism and sexism. However, when questioned by Lee Anderson, a member of parliament, the chair of the Authority, Rebecca Knox, was unable to answer some relatively simple questions about the decision to label her organization “institutionally racist.”