March/April 2004 Issue Number 57

Is a monthly electronic newsletter which links current events and issues to the daily challenges faced by fire and emergency services managers. Current topics in the areas of leadership development, workplace diversity, change management, and conflict resolution will be discussed.

We hope that you find the information here useful and provocative.
Let us know what you think! If you'd like to subscribe to the newsletter, please enter your email address in the box below.

Sign up for our free newsletter,
Consider This...

Maryland Fire Rescue Staff and Command School March 17-24, 2004, Memphis, TN. Linda Willing will be teaching one segment of this seminar. See www.mfri.org for more information.  

Leadership Training Seminar , March 25-28, 2004, Miami, Florida. Go to www.wfsi.org for more information.  

Workplace Violence: It's No Joke

Two firefighters routinely "razz" each other at shift change. One day, one of them picks up a chair and smashes the other in the face. One firefighter likes to "mess with" another firefighter in the station. One day, the second firefighter puts a knife to the throat of the first. One firefighter "teases" another firefighter by not answering the phone. He ends up unconscious after being hit over the head by another firefighter. These are just a few examples of so-called kidding around in the fire station that turned serious very quickly.

Joking with others in the fire station is a time-honored tradition, and truly does serve a greater purpose on the job. When you have just returned from scraping someone's brains off the sidewalk, sometimes the most therapeutic thing you can do is make a really tasteless joke. But accepting some fringe humor as useful is not the same as saying that anything goes. Most people can tell the difference between good-natured kidding around and mean-spirited or genuinely dangerous behaviors. Yet many people are unwilling to step up and stop inappropriate behavior when the line has clearly been crossed.

The result? Sometimes people get hurt. In the case of the assault with the chair, one firefighter ended up in the hospital on a respirator. Even if such incidents don't lead to physical injury, there are still real negative outcomes when such behaviors are allowed to continue. Employees become intimidated, angry, or seeking of revenge. Productivity falls. Relationships that depend on trust, such as those between an officer and his or her crew, are at times irrevocably damaged. If such incidents come to the attention of the public, the resulting damage can take years to reverse.

Preventing such damage is all about leadership. In all of the above mentioned events, officers were standing by when the incident spiraled out of control. In at least one of the incidents, officers enabled the behavior through failure to report. Don't think that station officers are immune from civil suits when a firefighter gets hurt under their watch, especially under completely avoidable circumstances. Fire officers are responsible for the safety of their crew, and not just on the fire scene. If inappropriate behavior is escalating, and you're standing by laughing, don't be surprised when you are held responsible for what happens next.

Source: New York Times, January, 2004

On August 25, 2003, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich signed the Victim's Economic Security and Safety Act, which took effect immediately. This law, which is modeled on the federal Family and Medical Leave Act, grants up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to victims of domestic or sexual violence. The law also includes potential benefits for affected family members.

Source: www.findlaw.com

The Limits of Religious Accommodation

May an employee legally defy an official diversity program because that program is in opposition to his or her religious beliefs? No, according to a recent decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The case involved Richard Peterson, a 20 year employee of Hewlett-Packard in Boise. Mr. Peterson, a self-described fundamentalist Christian, became upset when his employer began a campaign that highlighted diversity within the company, and included sexual orientation as a diversity group. Mr. Peterson told his employer that he believes homosexual activities violate the commandments contained in the Bible, and that he has a duty to "expose evil when confronted with sin." Based on these beliefs, Mr. Peterson began posting large pages of scriptural passages in his cubicle, including one which said that homosexuals should be put to death. These postings were visible to co-workers, customers, and anyone who passed through the adjacent corridor.

Mr. Peterson was informed that the postings were in violation of company policy and was told to remove them. He refused, and said he would only do so if the company removed the original posters. His supervisors met with him several times, trying to work out a compromise without success. Even when Mr. Peterson was given paid time off to reconsider, he returned to work and re-posted the material. Finally, Hewlett-Packard terminated him. Mr. Peterson then sued for discrimination based on his religious beliefs.

The lower court granted summary judgment to Hewlett-Packard, and when Mr. Peterson appealed to the district court, those judges came to the same conclusion. Specifically, the court determined that Mr. Peterson was not discharged due to his religious beliefs, but because he violated the company's diversity policy and was insubordinate and threatening to others in the organization. (Mr. Peterson had stated that he "intended to be hurtful" to others with his postings, in the hope that his gay and lesbian co-workers would read the passages, repent, and be saved.)

The court acknowledged that Hewlett-Packard was not trying to change Mr. Peterson's views, or challenge his First Amendment right to express them (Mr. Peterson had an anti-gay bumper sticker on his car, and had had anti-gay letters published in the newspaper.) Rather, the company's interest was in upholding its own diversity policy, which served the greater interests of the organization. In this regard, Mr. Peterson's behavior was deemed unacceptable, regardless of the personal beliefs that drove it.

Source: Richard D. Peterson v. Hewlett-Packard Co. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, #01-35795