LA County Firefighter Alleges County Failed to Stop Harassment

A Los Angeles County firefighter has filed suit alleging the county’s failure to address the ongoing harassment by another firefighter violated state anti-discrimination laws. Guilherme Guimaraes filed suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging three counts of violating the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

The suit alleges that Guimaraes was the victim of ongoing harassment and retaliation, and that despite numerous complaints and grievances, the county failed to address the matter. Quoting from the complaint:

• On or around August 2017, Plaintiff was exposed to toxic smoke and benzene during his duties as a firefighter. This exposure led to a diagnosis of aplastic anemia, a life-threatening disorder that severely affected his ability to produce new blood cells.
• As a result, Plaintiff underwent various treatments, including blood and platelet transfusions, chemotherapy, and, ultimately, a bone marrow transplant on January 3, 2018. Plaintiff was forced to take 20 months of medical leave while he battled the illness.
• Plaintiff returned to work in December 2019 and was assigned to a firefighter/deckhand position at Fire Station 110 in Marina Del Rey.
• Given the severity of his medical condition, his physician Dr. Nacamura at City of Hope recommended that Plaintiff be accompanied by a service dog to help manage his medical needs. However, instead of accommodating this legitimate request, the Department prematurely transferred him to Fire Station 171 (FS 171) in Inglewood without prior notice or explanation.
• In or around 2020, after just one week at FS 171, Plaintiff received a phone call informing him that he had to attend a Professional Performance Section meeting, with a recommendation to bring a union representative. No additional details or documentation were provided. During the meeting, Employee Relations informed Plaintiff that if he intended to bring his service dog to work, he would be transferred from FS-110 to another facility elsewhere.
• To retain his position at FS 110, which offered better ventilation and fewer toxic fumes, Plaintiff reluctantly chose not to bring his service dog to work.
• Beginning in or around February 2021, a new firefighter named Eric Barnett joined the station. From the beginning, Barnett quickly established himself as a disruptive presence, making offensive and derogatory comments, particularly about homosexuals. His inappropriate remarks targeted both the station’s captain and another male firefighter, both of whom are openly gay. Barnett’s comments included making crude remarks to other firefighters when the captain’s husband visited the station, such as suggesting that the two men would “find ways to suck each other off.”
• These comments struck a personal chord with Plaintiff, who has a relative who is gay, making him feel particularly uncomfortable and unwelcome in the station.
• Despite his discomfort, Plaintiff immediately reported Barnett’s behavior to his captain, a peer support counselor, and two peer support advisors. Although these complaints were documented, no corrective action was taken to address the harassment. The offensive behavior continued unabated.
• In or around March 2021, after Barnett became aware of Plaintiff’s complaints about Barnett’s behavior, a physical confrontation occurred in the station locker room.
• Barnett demanded that Plaintiff vacate his locker, and the conversation quickly turned heated. During the altercation, Barnett tore down photos of Plaintiff’s children from the locker, an act that crossed personal boundaries and deeply upset him.
• Although Plaintiff reported the incident to his Captain in detail, the unspoken rules of the station’s culture discouraged him from filing an official grievance.
• Following the locker room incident, Barnett continued to harass Plaintiff. He publicly ridiculed Plaintiff’s medical history, questioning the legitimacy of his illness and mocking him for the time he had taken off work to recover.
• Barnett questioned openly whether Plaintiff “really” had cancer, accusing him of taking advantage of the system. Barnett’s comments extended beyond Plaintiff’s medical history. Barnett also made derogatory remarks about Plaintiff’s role as a father. Barnett questioned whether it was Plaintiff’s custody matters which kept him off work and he made disparaging statements suggesting that parents of gay children are unfit and are the reason behind their children’s sexual orientation, further contributing to the toxic work environment.
• At one point, Barnett posted a photo of Plaintiff in the station kitchen with the words “DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY” scrawled across it. This was intended to suggest that Plaintiff had unfairly avoided work responsibilities due to his medical condition. This photo was later turned over to the County of Los Angeles Policy of Equity Department (CPOE) during a harassment investigation initiated in March 2022. Although the CPOE upheld the allegations against Barnett, he was permitted to continue working at the station alongside Plaintiff.
• Throughout 2021 and 2022, the leadership at FS 110 was aware of Barnett’s behavior and comments towards Plaintiff. However, the Captains did little more than give Barnett a slap on the wrist with logged “coaching and counseling” sessions. Barnett’s behavior did not change, and the hostile environment persisted, if not worsened.
• In or around March 2022, during a secondary lineup station meeting led by Captain Vasquez to discuss Barnett’s ongoing toxic behavior, Barnett verbally assaulted Plaintiff in front of the entire crew, making similar inappropriate comments about Plaintiff’s medical condition and bringing up his children. Despite the presence of supervisors, no one intervened. Additionally, another Captain from a different station remained in the room in case anything further escalated, yet no action was taken. Plaintiff, unable to tolerate the abuse any longer, responded angrily, telling Barnett he was “done with the conversation.”
• Following this incident, Plaintiff filed a formal report with the captain on duty and a CPOE complaint. Despite taking this official action, the harassment did not cease.
• Barnett’s harassment of Plaintiff persisted, as he began calling him a “rat” around the station, continuing to question the legitimacy of Plaintiff’s medical conditions, and making derogatory comments about homosexual parents, suggesting they ruin their children by making them gay.
• [The complaint is replete with additional allegations of outrageous allegations extending into 2024.]
• On or around May 29, 2024, Plaintiff received a written reprimand, dated May 14, 2024, for his confrontation with Barnett on March 2, 2022. The reprimand came more than two years after the incident and was yet another example of the Department’s pattern of selective discipline.
• The reprimand deeply affected Plaintiff’s health; that same day, Plaintiff experienced chest pains while at the station and was rushed to the hospital, where he was admitted overnight for observation with elevated hypertension.
• Although he filed a grievance to dispute the reprimand, the Department continued to ignore his concerns and ultimately denied his grievance.
• In or around July 2024, Plaintiff filed yet another grievance—this time in response to Barnett taking a voluntary overtime shift on the same apparatus as Plaintiff.
• The Department was aware that Plaintiff was making efforts to work any shift opposite Barnett, yet Barnett was now actively seeking opportunities to place himself in close proximity to Plaintiff. Once again, the grievance was swiftly denied.
• During this period, Barnett continued to make similar demeaning and inappropriate anti-gay remarks at Plaintiff, further contributing to the hostile work environment.
• Plaintiff continued to take it in his own hands to try to schedule himself away from Barnett as much as possible but, Barnett, with the Department’s knowledge, again continued to go after him.
• In or around early August 2024, Plaintiff’s captain informed him that Barnett was once again scheduled to work with him on the boat, despite previous grievances.
• Fortunately, Captain Muldoon with the help of the card file captain, who also served as the vice president of Union 1014, intervened and changed the schedule to prevent Barnett from working with Plaintiff.
• On or around August 10, 2024, Barnett refused direct orders from the captains and insisted on working with Plaintiff on the boat.
• Chief Sara Rathbun had to be involved, and Barnett eventually received a written notice of instruction for his behavior.
• Nevertheless, Barnett’s passive-aggressive actions toward Plaintiff persisted. Later that day, Barnett purposely sat uncomfortably close to Plaintiff in the day room despite there being ten open seats, changed the TV channel Plaintiff was watching without asking, and made a troubling comment about purchasing a new gun in front of other firefighters—another clear attempt at intimidation.
• Aware of the shooting that occurred at LA County Fire Station 81 in the recent past between two colleagues, this act of intimidation further heightened Plaintiff’s concerns for his safety.

From the complaint, it is not entirely clear whether Guimaraes is alleging disability discrimination, gender discrimination/sexual orientation, or both, plus retaliation for having complained about the harassment. Here is a copy of the complaint: