Mayor Marc Morial characterized the sickout, like the one last month, as an "illegal job action." The mayor stated that he was consulting with lawyers regarding taking punitive action against the fire fighters involved.

New Orleans Fire Fighters Association President Bill Sanchez said the union did not

The union charges that since 1977 the city has refused to honor a contract provision that would decrease by two hours the amount of accumulated time to reach overtime eligibility. Additionally, fire fighters are seeking a portion of the city's budget surplus to fill a reported 70 vacancies caused by retirements and resignations. Further, the Morial administration has eliminated eight engine companies as a cost savings move. 

In a touch of irony, reportedly the 86 individuals who received overtime pay earlier this month are the same persons who called in ill April 13 but were denied sick pay.

Safety measures aimed at fire-caused incapacitation and health effects were first

A research team at the National Institute of Standards and Technology will lead the study. The research, scheduled to start in late summer, will

The suit accuses the Federal Signal Corporation of negligence. The petition alleges that the company's sirens are "defective . . . in that repeated exposure to the intense noise . . . causes permanent, irreversible hearing loss." The sirens operate at 125 decibels. In comparison, a gasoline-powered lawnmower produces about 100 decibels

An attorney for the fire fighters claims that the design of the siren produces an excessively loud sound that travels in all directions instead of being focused forward. A shroud on the siren could still alert on-coming motorist while protecting fire fighters' ears. Attorney Jordan Margolis claimed that fire sirens are louder than those on police vehicles. Additionally, fire fighters assigned to older apparatus are more exposed to the blaring sound because they ride outside. 

Sirens on newer fire apparatus are generally mounted on the front bumper instead of on the cab roof. Additionally, newer engines and ladder trucks allow fire personnel to ride inside an enclosed cab. Some Chicago fire fighters reportedly are wearing ear protectors designed for target shooting to reduce the sound. 

Mayor Daub has withheld $17,715 in unpaid vacation leave due the city's retired Fire Chief Tom Graeve. The Daub administration points to a provision of city law that calls for withholding

The union, Local 385, of the International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO, has come to the ex-chief's defense. Union officials claim that Daub's administration knew they were taking leave in excess of the permissible contract amount and that some of the time was actually used in 1997 to campaign for Daub! The mayor denies the allegation.

The Douglas County Sheriff's Office has conducted an investigation of the matter. The county prosecutor is reviewing the results of the inquiry

City council is apparently unimpressed by the Mayor's view of the problem and has scheduled

The matter started last December when a city fire truck stopped at a downtown newsstand that was hosting an autograph session for a female model often featured in Club, a hard-core men's magazine. After the fire fighters arrived, the model posed for photos in front of the fire apparatus. Then, the model and a Club magazine photographer accompanied fire fighters to Station 5 where the female model posed for more pictures, including some where the model exposed her breasts. Several of the photos

Following an investigation of the incident, Chief Smith initially sought termination of Hanner and suspensions for six other fire fighters. Hanner's discipline was reduced after he expressed remorse for his involvement. He also did not expect his image to appear the magazine. The suspension will cost the fire fighter about $25,000 in salary. 

In addition to the suspension, Hanner must complete 160 hours of community service, transfer to another station, and surrender supervisory duties for one year. He will be placed on departmental probation for one year. 

The department and the Indianapolis Professional Fire Fighters Association plan to offer training on ethics and professional conduct to help prevent future incidents. 

Cases of interest

HELD: Epps files a claim of disparate impact discrimination based on the fire department's policy of not having separate sleeping, shower, and bathroom facilities for female fire fighters. As shocking as these claims may be, they must be dismissed because Epps did not comply with the procedural requirements that she file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC prior to filing suit. Federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear claims under federal fair employment laws unless the plaintiff has filed a charge with the EEOC. Given that Epps failed to comply with the EEOC administrative rules, her claim must be dismissed. Similarly, her claim of constitutional deprivation must be dismissed. Because Congress did not establish a statute of limitations for constitutional rights claims, federal courts borrow a state's statute of limitations governing analogous causes of action. Under Pennsylvania law, the statute of limitations for personal injury is two years and that statute is applied to civil rights claims. Epps' complaint was filed in 1998, but her cause of action arose out of incidents that occurred in 1995 and 1996. Thus, the two-year statute of limitations bars this suit as well. Case dismissed. [Epps v. City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 33 F.Supp.2d 409 (W.D. Pa. 1998)]

HELD: Illinois statute provides for a duty disability pension for "an active fireman who is or becomes disabled on or after the effective date as the result of a specific injury, or accumulative injuries, or a specific illness incurred or resulting from an act or acts of duty." The pension board denied O'Callaghan's claim on the grounds that he was not disabled "as a result of an act or acts of duty." The statute defines "an act of duty" as any act imposed on an active fireman by the ordinance of a city, by the rules or regulations of its fire department, or any act performed by an active fireman while on duty, having for its direct purpose the saving of the life or property of another person." The pension board argues that the phrase "having for its direct purpose the saving of life or property of another" modifies each of the preceding clauses in the definition of "act of duty." Thus, the board says that fire fighter training has only an indirect purpose of saving life or property. This interpretation of the statute is erroneous. The word "or" is a disjunctive particle and requires that the subsections which it connects be read separately from one another. It has long been held that the word "or" as used in its ordinary sense marks an alternative indicating the various members of the sentence which it connects are to be taken separately. When this rule is applied to the statute at hand, the phrase "having for its direct purpose the saving of life or property of another person" only modifies the directly preceding clause "any act performed by

HELD: To prevail on a claim of premises liability, a plaintiff must allege and prove the existence of a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty, and an injury proximately caused by the breach of duty. Here, the homeowner claims that the fire fighter failed to present evidence establishing the existence of the duty because of the Fireman's Rule. The Fireman's Rule is a doctrine that limits the extent to which fire fighters may recover for injuries sustained when they enter into privately owned property in the discharge of their duties. Premised on the concept of assumption of risk, the Fireman's Rule places a limitation of landowner liability based upon the fact that fire fighters knowingly and voluntarily subject themselves to certain hazards while fighting fires. When a fire fighter enters upon a person's property to fight a fire, he assumes the risk of being injured by causes related to or arising out of the fire. Under Illinois law, however, a homeowner still has the duty to exercise reasonable care to maintain property in a safe condition so as to prevent injury to a fire fighter due to causes independent of the fire. The rationale supporting the Fireman's Rule is based on the fact that fire fighters receive specialized training to anticipate and encounter the risks associated with fire fighting. While a fire fighter may be able to recover for unexpected or hidden damages attributable to a landowner's negligence, he may not recover for injuries caused by obvious dangers or dangers which his training and experience would lead him to reasonably anticipate. The evidence at trial established that fire fighters recognize that falling objects and the collapse of building structures are inevitably associated with the task of fighting fires. Similarly, they are aware that fire can possibly weaken structures and a severely damaged house

HELD: At the time of the civil service hearing, Patterson could not state with certainty that he had not said "food stamps" instead of "free food." He did state that whatever he said was said as an attempt at humor and not to disparage anyone on account of race or gender. A review of Patterson's service record as well as his personal relationship with the African-American community leads to the conclusion that the worst that Patterson could have said was a remark that was insensitive and unprofessional or a bad joke. The evidence does not establish that the comment was motivated by racial or gender animus. Similarly, the action of the civil service commission in waiting nearly three years to deal with the hearing examiner's report is outside the range of reasonableness. The written apology was appropriate punishment for what can best be characterized as a stupid and insensitive remark. Reversed for deputy fire chief restoring all pay and benefits. [Patterson v. New Orleans Fire Department, 727 So.2d 551 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1998)]

HELD: The civil service commission argues the trial court made an error of law by concluding that the two fire fighters were eligible to sit for the promotion examination. A review of Ohio statute reveals nothing requiring that the 24 months of service be with the same department. The law is simply silent regarding whether credit is to be given for service in another fire department than the one in which the fire fighter is currently employed. When a statute contains ambiguous terms, a court interpreting the statute must determine what the legislature intended the statute to mean. Courts are not inclined to be technically restrictive in the matter of the eligibility to take examinations where the parties have acquired experience in the position of the next lower rank for a period of time sufficient to qualify them to take examination for the next higher rank. The purpose of the statute appears to be to ensure that fire fighters who are promoted have requisite fire fighting experience prior to promotion. The fire fighter may accumulate that experience with more than one fire department. Given the general view that such statutes should be liberally construed and the lack of any local rule requiring the experience to be obtained in a single agency, trial court was correct in determining that the fire fighters were eligible to take the exam and their names should have been certified on the promotion list. It is noteworthy that the statutory definition of "seniority" is limited to service in a single agency. Seniority is different than time in rank. Time in rank pertains to time accrued within a single job title, while seniority relates to time accumulated in a single municipal civil service system, regardless

HELD: Montemayor asserts the fire chief's discretion to terminate probationary fire fighters is limited to good cause, while the city contends the fire chief's discretion is absolute. Texas civil service law characterizes a fire fighter, police officer, or academy trainee as a one-year probationary employee. During the probationary period the department shall discharge the probationary person

HELD: The insurance carrier contends that Prueser was killed while attempting to save members of his family and was not acting within the course of his duties as a volunteer fire fighter. Deciding whether an employee is acting within the scope of employment under the Wisconsin worker's compensation law is a mixed question of law and fact. As to the facts, the hearing board's findings are conclusive on appeal, if they are supported by credible and substantial evidence. Credible evidence is that which excludes speculation and conjecture. The evidence established that Prueser was an active member of the volunteer fire department and trained in dealing with fires. All volunteers were required to immediately respond to a fire whenever they were confronted with one. They were also trained to protect life and property and to attempt rescues rather than wait for an officer to arrive at the scene. The board also found that Prueser acted more responsibly in a panic situation than would a person without fire training. This view was supported by testimony from his wife. Similarly, Prueser's behavior during the fire was consistent with that of a fire fighter. The procedures that he used in attempting to rescue his children as well as pounding on the wall to alert neighbors were consistent with the duties of a fire fighter. The findings of the hearing board are due great deference. It was rational for the board to conclude that Prueser was acting at least in substantial part to further his duties as a volunteer fire fighter. The fact that the citizens he was attempting to rescue were his family members should not make any difference in this determination. Awarding of worker's compensation death benefits affirmed. [Town of Russell Volunteer Fire Department v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, 589 N.W.2d 445 (Wis. App. 1998)]