Referring to the controversy over failing to reveal medical records as a "20-year conspiracy," Schaitberger, in a prepared statement, said, "Because of the city's cover up there are fire fighters dying of hepatitis C, an illness that has been recognized by the State of Florida as one of many job-related ailments that attack fire fighters and paramedics." 

At the core of the dispute are allegations that city health officials failed to advise fire fighters that they had health problems, including symptoms of hepatitis C, following their annual physical exams. The issue came to the forefront last year when Bob Flamily, a 23- 

Officials of IAFF Local 1365 have called on the city to immediately conduct hepatitis C testing of all fire fighters and authorize an outside investigation of the allegations. Union officials estimate that 400 active and 400 retired fire fighters could be affected by the non-disclosure of the medical data. The IAFF is also pressing the state attorney general to initiate an investigation of the city's conduct. 

Mayor Glenda Hood recently indicated that she has changed her mind about an outside investigation and is moving to authorize such an inquiry. "The bottom line is, we want to get the facts and we want to get them as soon as possible," said the mayor who originally opposed an investigation because of the lawsuits. 

Voters approved the tax following a relatively low-key campaign by fire department officials and union 

The Kansas City Fire Department, which has an authorized strength of 774, will reportedly assign 30 new fire fighters to two new stations but use the other 105 to reach the four fire fighter minimum manning standard recently adopted by the National Fire 

In the 1970s Congress enacted a statute requiring federal fire fighters to retire at age 55. To receive full pension benefits, however, they must log 20 years of service. Consequently, the USFS established a maximum hiring age of 35, regardless of experience. 

After Hudak received official notice that she was too old for full-time employment, she was offered seasonal work by four different ranger districts. 

Unions representing USFS employees have asked Secretary of the Interior Ann Veneman to waive 

Critics have suggested that inexperience may have played a role in the deaths of four wildland fire fighters last month in Washington. Three of the four were 21 years old or younger. Additionally, the USFS has denied having difficulty finding seasoned personnel. 

Earlier this month the Senate unanimously passed and sent to the President a bill raising the retirement age for federal fire fighters to 57, the same as federal law enforcement officers. The House of Representatives had unanimously passed the bill earlier in the year. The President has not as yet signed it. The new law will only marginally improve the situation. For Kathy Hudak and other experienced fire fighters of similar age, full time employment remains unavailable. 

There is no known vaccine for hepatitis C. Recent news accounts present the prevalence of blood-borne pathogen diseases, mostly hepatitis C, among first-responders to vehicular crashes and other medical emergencies. Devoid of mandatory implementation of 

"As an association committed to safety training and especially fire fighter safety, NFPA is pleased to offer this technology-based tool as a simpler way for fire fighters to learn how to protect themselves from blood-borne diseases" said Gary O. Tokle, assistant vice president of Public Fire Protection, NFPA. "We hope that by using the Internet, this training can take place virtually any time of the day or night." 

Fire fighters may log on to the free training site, www.targetsafety.com/nfpabbp. Information about other online firefighter courses can also be found at the same site. 

Cases of interest 

HELD: The facts of the case reveal that in 1997 city administration met with fire department executives and discussed issues relating to B-shift supervised by Bechtel. The exact scope of the discussion was unknown but thereafter the fire chief transferred a captain to B-shift where he was to report anything that he regarded as nonperformance or poor performance on B-shift. Subsequently, Bechtel received no performance evaluation or merit increase for that year. The city administrator had instructed the fire chief to review Bechtel's performance for that year but the chief failed to do so. Bechtel, however, neither complained nor notified the city administrator of the lack of performance evaluation or merit increase. Evidence also indicates that while the fire captain documented Bechtel's activities while working on B-shift, no written conclusions were placed in Bechtel's personnel file. For a public employee to maintain a federal suit against a municipality for violating his constitutional rights it must be established that the violation of the rights was by actions of an individual representing official policy. 

HELD: In order to establish that a deprivation of a public employee's liberty interest has occurred without due process of law, the employee must prove that: (1) a false statement; (2) of a stigmatizing nature; (3) attending a governmental employee's discharge; (4) was made public (5) by the governmental employer; (6) without a meaningful opportunity for employee name clearing. The publication requirement is met in this case because under Florida law information in a public employee's personnel file is subject to public inspection. All other necessary elements for a cause of action are present except one: that the stigmatizing information was placed in Cannon's file during the course of his discharge from employment. This case presents the question of whether the right to a name clearing hearing is available only for termination of public employment or available for other adverse actions. In 1976, the U. S. Supreme Court held that defamation by the government, standing alone and apart from any other action, does not constitute a deprivation of liberty or property under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court established what has become known as the "stigma plus" test, essentially requiring a public employee to show not only defamation but also the violation of some more tangible interest in order to gain the protections of the due process clause. Prior case law holds that there is no right to be promoted. Additionally, case law holds that where no loss of income or rank occurs, and absent a discharge or more, injury to reputation itself is not a protected liberty interest. This precedent requires a ruling that the denial of promotion to Cannon in connection with the stigmatizing injury he suffered when the memorandum was placed in his personnel file is insufficient to establish that the denial of an opportunity 

HELD: To establish a claim of discrimination Andrade must show initially that he was qualified for the position and failed to be selected because of his national origin. He argues, for example, that one fire official stated there were "too many Mexicans on the eligibility list." However, review of the evidence shows that Andrade has not brought forth competent proof that he was qualified for a beginning fire fighter position and that other similarly situated trainees, nonmembers of his protected class, remain employed by the department. It is undisputed that Andrade failed one of the requirements for a position, namely passing of the polygraph examination. The city required all applicants to pass the polygraph examination and there is no evidence that the examination given Andrade was different than that administered to other applicants. Additionally, he signed a form acknowledging his understanding that his application would be withdrawn if he failed the polygraph. He did not object to the exam questions nor to the behavior of the examiner. He was even afforded an opportunity to retake the 

HELD: The Alaska Constitution, like the U. S. Constitution, prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. But, the Alaska Constitution also creates a right to privacy. These provisions afford broader protection to Alaskan citizens than their federal counterparts. Thus, the question presented in this case is whether the suspicionless substance abuse testing violates the state constitutional provisions. Prior case law has held that the primary purpose of these two Alaska provisions is to protect personal privacy and dignity against unwarranted intrusion by governmental officials. Prior case law also holds that the collection and testing of urine intrudes upon expectations of privacy and are consequently a "search" within the meaning of the law. Case law interpreting the Fourth Amendment has allowed suspicionless testing of public safety employees under a "special needs" theory. A "special needs" theory attempts to balance an individual's constitutional interests with those of the government. A special needs theory that recognizes neither probable cause nor a warrant is required to govern searches is particularly appropriate in highly regulated safety essential fields of work. Workers employed in such fields necessarily expect reduced privacy in the job-related activities and implicitly agree to a diminished level of privacy when they accept employment. The fire fighters' union argues that fire fighting is not such a heavily regulated activity. This view, however, is not supported by prior case law. Both fire fighters and police officers undeniably hold safety sensitive positions in extensively regulated fields of activity where they discharge duties fraught with risk of injury to others and even a momentarily lapse of attention can have disastrous consequences. The court believes that workers in such positions could reasonably expect that their conditions of employment would be subject to exceptionally close scrutiny. Likewise, the unions argue that there is no 

HELD: At the civil service hearing the fire superintendent testified that Jones' failing to stop and render aid, or at least find out what happened at the time of the accident, showed lack of judgment. It also affected the fire department's ability to maintain public confidence as well as confidence of Jones' co-workers. The superintendent also testified that the police investigation had an impact on the fire department in that Jones' unit had to be taken out of service and was unable to respond to any emergency during the investigation. Finally, media accounts of the incident identified Jones as a New Orleans fire fighter. All of this had a disruptive effect on the morale of individuals in the department as well as the confidence of the public. In reviewing dismissal of a public employee, the court must determine whether there was good or lawful cause for taking the disciplinary action and whether the punishment imposed was commensurate with the offense. "Cause" includes conduct prejudicial to the public service involved or detrimental to its efficient operation. Disciplinary action against a civil service employee will be deemed arbitrary and capricious unless there is real and substantial relationship between the improper conduct and the efficient operation of the public service. Here, there is uncontradicted evidence that Jones pled guilty to a felony arising out of striking 

HELD: Under South Carolina law a worker's compensation claim is barred unless it is filed within two years after an accident. Prior case law holds that the two years begins to run from the date the claimant either knew or should have known of the compensible injury. Here, Schurlknight argues that in repetitive trauma claims such as his the date on which the claim arises should be the last date of exposure to the repetitive trauma. He argues that the statute of limitations should start after his last exposure to his noisy environment. Such is not the law, however. Schurlknight's medical records indicate that in May of 1995, when he was counseled at the hearing center, he was referred to vocational rehabilitation for funding assistance for hearing aids. At that point Schurlknight knew or should have known that he had suffered a compensable injury under worker's compensation law. Even if he was unaware at that time, his hearing test in early 1996 should have given him notice. In either case, more than two years lapsed from those tests and his filing of the worker's compensation claim. His efforts at obtaining worker's compensation benefits are barred by the statute of limitations. [Schurlknight v. City of North Charleston, 545 S.E.2d 833 (S.C. Ct. App. 2001)]