FDNY Firefighter Files Federal Suit Alleging Detail Was Retaliation

An FDNY firefighter assigned to Rescue 1 has filed suit alleging his continued detail out of the company was retaliation for his having filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the New York State Division of Human Rights.

Daniel Hyland filed suit today in US District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The suit named the city, former Fire Commissioner Daniel Nigro, and Battalion Chief Mark Guerra. Hyland’s complaint alleges retaliation under NY State Human Rights Law, retaliation under NY City Human Rights Law, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Quoting from the complaint:

  • On or around September 3, 2019, Mr. Hyland wrote a letter in support of Captain Morris after rumors circulated that Rescue 1 had lost faith in Captain Morris and did not want him to return as Captain of Rescue 1.
  • Mr. Hyland wrote that letter to correct the misrepresentation and to state that Rescue 1 had faith in Captain Morris.
  • In or around October 2019, Mr. Hyland confided in a captain outside of his firehouse, Captain Peter Traut, an EEO counselor within the counseling unit, that his then-interim Captain Ceriello was harassing him because of his support of Captain Morris.
  • Following his protected activity, Mr. Hyland was subjected to a hostile work environment.
  • An alarming incident included a walking cane that was hung on the wall of the Officer’s office in the firehouse. The cane said “Firefighter Attitude Adjustment Cane” with “Hyland” written on it. This was obviously a threat of physical violence.
  • The FDNY failed to launch any formal investigation into the incident.
  • On October 22, 2019, Mr. Hyland filed an EEO charge. Shortly after, Mr. Hyland was recommended to go on temporary detail away from Rescue 1 to allow for an investigation into the complaint.
  • This “temporary detail” was suggested by Deputy Chief Cunningham, who intimated that if Mr. Hyland did not accept the detail voluntarily, it would be issued involuntarily.
  • Ultimately, Mr. Hyland accepted the detail.
  • On or about December 11, 2019, Mr. Hyland tried to return to Rescue 1 and was informed on January 2, 2020, that his detail was now non-voluntary and that he could not return to Rescue 1.
  • Mr. Hyland had not engaged in any wrongdoing and was only put on temporary detail while his charge was under investigation. He was, therefore, sent on non-voluntary detail immediately after filing an EEO charge of harassment.
  • In July 2020, Defendants reassigned Mr. Hyland back to Rescue 1, but three days later, before the reassignment took effect, Defendant NIGRO canceled that reassignment and directly placed Mr. Hyland in Rescue 5, where he has remained since.
  • In January 2021, Mr. Hyland spoke with Defendant GUERRA about his detail and questioned the discriminatory and retaliatory decisions made by Defendants, and specifically Defendant NIGRO.
  • Defendant GUERRA explained that it was a “we” decision, indicating that more than one individual was responsible for the Defendants’ retaliatory actions, including himself and Defendant NIGRO.
  • On November 7, 2022, Mr. Hyland filed an EEO complaint alleging that failing to return him to Rescue 1 from his supposedly “temporary detail” was in retaliation for his prior EEO complaint.
  • On or about December 14, 2022, FDNY closed the file without performing a substantive investigation.
  • On or about February 28, 2023, Mr. Hyland filed another EEO complaint alleging continued retaliation for filing the EEO complaints as FDNY had yet to return him to Rescue 1 and end his “detail.
  • ” FDNY failed to take this complaint seriously and condoned the continued retaliation Mr. Hyland faced.
  • On or about October 5, 2023, Mr. Hyland requested to end his detail and return to Rescue 1. This request was denied.
  • On or about November 5, 2023, Mr. Hyland requested to end his detail and return to Rescue 1. This request was denied.
  • On or about December 11, 2023, Mr. Hyland again requested to return to Rescue 1.
  • This request has not yet been granted. It had become obvious at this point that Mr. Hyland’s “voluntary temporary detail” had become an involuntary permanent transfer, and Defendants had no intention of allowing him to return to Rescue 1.
  • Mr. Hyland was never provided any explanation as to why he was placed on permanent involuntary detail and why he is not permitted to return to Rescue 1.

Hyland’s complaint does not specifically seek an injunction ordering his transfer back to Rescue 1, but rather seeks monetary damages. Here is a copy of the complaint:

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

Washington State Recruit Noose Case Dismissed

A lawsuit filed by an African American recruit firefighter in Washington state who had a noose placed around his neck by a fellow recruit, has been voluntarily dismissed. Elijah Page filed the action in federal court back in 2023 against the Clark County Fire District 6, three chief officers, a captain and former recruit John Erickson.

NY Court Rules FD Violated Lieutenant’s Rights

A Suffolk County, New York judge has ruled that the Stony Brook Fire District improperly suspended a volunteer fire lieutenant, and in doing so violated his statutory right to due process. Thomas J. Killeen filed suit under a NY law that allows aggrieved persons to challenge acts or omissions of a governmental entity, an action known as an Article 78 proceeding.