By Jim Cline and Mark Anderson
In Frost v. City of Philadelphia, a Philadelphia court denied a trial for Plaintiff Frost’s claims that the City discriminated against him by refusing to admit him to the Fire Academy and then firing him because of his disability.
In 2007, Frost became disabled while performing a fire rescue as a volunteer firefighter. As a result of that incident, Frost’s left arm and right leg were amputated and fitted with prosthetics, and his body was severely burned, leaving visible cars over 60% of his body. Frost, nevertheless, is a licensed and certified paramedic in both the State of Pennsylvania and with the National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians, with over five years of experience and over 1,100 hours of field internship experience. In 2014, Frost applied to be a Paramedic. Frost was not medically cleared for the start of the 2015 Fire Academy, but was cleared for the 2016 Academy. While attending the Academy, Frost failed a protocol quiz required of all cadets. The Department then terminated Frost.
Frost sued the Department claiming that it discriminated against him by failing to grant him entrance into the academy in 2015, subjected him to a hostile work environment while he was at the 2016 academy, and then wrongfully terminated him.
In defense of the claims made by Frost, the Department argued that there was no discrimination. First, in regard to its 2015 decision to not allow Frost to attend the academy, the Department argued that it wanted to ensure that an employee with the disabilities Frost had could do the job safely and effectively. Second, in regard to Frost’s claim that he was subjected to a hostile work environment while at the 2016 academy, the Department argued that the incidents Frost alleged were neither severe nor pervasive. Finally, in regard to its reasons for terminating Frost, the Department argued that Frost failed a protocol quiz and that it terminated any cadet who failed to received passing grades on protocol quizzes, just as it had terminated him.
The court ruled in favor of the employer. First, in regard to the decision to not admit Frost to the academy in 2015, the court held that there was no evidence the Department’s stated reason for not admitting Frost to the academy in 2015 was false. Second, in regard to the hostile work environment allegedly occurring at the 2016 academy, the court held that none of the comments asserted were sufficiently severe or pervasive as to give rise to a hostile work environment. Third, in regard to Frost’s termination, the court held that the policy requiring passing scores was applied equally to all candidates and, therefore, the decision to terminate Frost was not discriminatory.
While the law here in the United States protects disabled individuals from being discriminated against due to their disabilities, it must always be remembered that the essence of discrimination law is that protected minorities cannot be treated less favorably than non-protected individuals. That is, to be successful in any discrimination lawsuit, a plaintiff must be able to prove that he or she was treated less favorably than “nonprotected similarly situated comparators.” Here, the academy applied the same quiz standards to all individuals and terminated those who failed to pass, regardless of whether they were disabled or non-disabled.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on Disability Discrimination Claims and Disability Discrimination**
