Explaining the Lawsuit Against San Diego Water Rescues
Ed Harris, a lifeguard and former City Council member of San Diego, has recently filed a lawsuit against the City of San Diego for retaliation. Harris claims that he has received unjustifiable reprimands three times after he voiced concerns over a change to the city’s emergency response protocols.
The legal concept of “retaliation” pertains to employee protection from undue adversity in the workplace, after performing protected actions. For example, if an employee receives a subpoena to testify against his or her employer, and the employee’s truthful statements cause harm to the employer, the employer cannot take punitive action against the employee for acting in good faith.
History Behind the Lawsuit (EDWARD B. HARRIS,. Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF SAN DIEGO)
Previously, 911 operators would redirect calls concerning water and flood-related emergencies to the lifeguard dispatch center. Lifeguards have water rescue training that other professionals do not, but the dispatch center was overwhelmed after a series of heavy rains caused flooding and water issues in the area.
A change in protocol now redirects 911 calls for drownings and flooding to the Fire Department, a change that Harris believes is unfounded and originates from Fire Chief Brian Fennessy’s desire to inflate the city’s Fire-Rescue Department budget. Harris alleged that the Fire Chief cited misrepresentative, “cherry picked” data to justify the change, which Harris believes puts San Diego citizens’ lives at risk.
Harris believes that Fire Chief Brian Fennessy has recklessly manipulated public safety data to secure additional funding and personnel for the city’s Fire-Rescue Department. Harris alleges that after he and other employees voiced concerns about moving water-related 911 calls from a specialized dispatch center to a wider emergency response system, he faced a hostile work environment. Harris faced three official reprimands:
- The first reprimand was for “speaking unprofessionally to coworkers.” The inquiry quickly closed without explanation.
- The second was for leaking information to the press. The city did not provide the necessary documentation to substantiate the claim.
- The third is still pending and alleges Harris attempted to interfere with a contract between the City of San Diego and car manufacturer Toyota. While this investigation is ongoing, there has been no official statement concerning what kind of “interference” Harris committed in this capacity, and Harris’ attorney believes this is simply subterfuge for retaliation.
Legal Issues with Retaliation
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission protects American employees from retaliation in the workplace, and this protection extends to government employees like Harris. Federal law prevents employers from retaliating against employees who act in good faith or engage in protected actions, such as testifying in legal proceedings against the employer or reporting labor standards violations to oversight agencies like the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Employers found guilty of retaliation face significant legal penalties including fines and restitution to victims.
Anyone who suspects retaliation in the workplace, especially after engaging in protected actions, should seek the counsel of a reliable employment attorney. Suing an employer or government agency may feel daunting, and the process is very complex, but the right attorney can help victims of retaliation secure compensation for their losses.