Shore Line Times

 Madison Ambulance Fights Ex-Employee’s Discrimination Claim

By Alexis A. Maislen

 

MADISON—A former employee of the Madison Ambulance Association is suing the organization, claiming he

was discriminated against on the basis of his age and education when he was fired from his job.

Frank Jones, 52, of Madison filed complaints with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and

Opportunities (CCHRO) and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) in Boston against the

ambulance association in November and December 1999. He alleged the ambulance association used his age,

advanced degrees in health care management and finance and his need to take an extended leave of absence to

care for a sick aunt as reasons to pass him over time and again for promotions and to eventually fire him from

his emergency medical technician (EMT) job.

But the ambulance association argues that Jones’ claims are "factually and legally groundless."

Jones would like to be reinstated at the Ambulance to a full-time management position with benefits, acquire a

seat on the Board of Directors and receive back pay for the months he was out of work.

"Madison will resist reinstatement by opposing his complaint. Reinstatement is inappropriate or any other

remedy," said Leslie Hollo, attorney with the Madison firm Snow, Atticks and Hollo, which represents the

ambulance association.

A 12 year full-time employee of the ambulance association, Jones was earning approximately $25,000 a year

with benefits as an EMT-IV when he started a year-long leave of absence in 1998 to care for an aged aunt with

Alzheimer’s disease who lived with Jones and his parents in their Webster Point Road home. Jones said he felt

he could no longer give full attention to his ambulance job and tend to his ailing family member and asked for a

leave of absence.

Mary Hotchkiss, director of the Madison Ambulance Association (MAA), explained the options to Jones in a

letter dated Aug. 3, 1998:

"As you and I have discussed, you may prefer not to take a leave of absence, but instead to work per diem. In

that case, you would work occasional shifts and events when mutually convenient for MAA and for you. If, after

12 consecutive months, you are not available to return to a regular full-time schedule, you will be considered to

have voluntarily resigned the position you now hold. At our discretion, you may be eligible to remain per diem,"

it read.

According to Hollo, the organization is exempt from the Family and Medical Leave Act because it employs

under 50 people.

After Jones received the Aug. 3 letter, Jones chose to work the per diem shifts. In addition to this agreement, he

received two consecutive weeks of accumulated vacation pay. The remainder of his sick days (five and a half)

would be paid over the last week he worked and the week following the vacation time. If he returned to

full-time status, he would be on probation for six months. He would accrue vacation and sick leave after one

year.

While on leave, Jones said he worked an average of two per diem shifts per week.

In the affidavit to his complaint, Jones stated he was working such a shift on June 19, 1999 when he was met by

his supervisor, Mike Morteollo, and Hotchkiss. They "were waiting…to hand me a letter telling me formally that

there was no position for me at Madison Ambulance Association. I was also badgered (harassed) for writing

holiday’ on the Fourth of July time card…at any rate I became upset and left before I lost my cool."

The following day, Jones called Hotchkiss to apologize.

"I stated that I needed time off to think about how I had been treated and if I could continue to be in the

employment of an organization that was so poorly managed, supervised and lacked leadership, integrity and

direction," he said in his affidavit.

Throughout his tenure, Jones had many run-ins with management resulting in 17 written warnings, one

suspension and placement on six-month probation, which Jones itemized in his affidavit.

Jones, who holds a master of professional studies degree in health care management from Quinnipiac College, a

long-term health care administrator’s license and a master’s in business administration in accounting and finance,

believes Hotchkiss was "intimidated" by his "high levels of education" and cited four times in his affidavit

instances when he was passed up for promotion in favor of younger people.

Jones vows he is not a disgruntled ex-employee out on a crusade to expose his former boss for unfairness and

said that when he spotted something he thought was inefficient uses of resources at the ambulance, he suggested

to Hotchkiss that improvements be made. However, Jones alleged that his "mere suggestions" were met with

hostility and resentment by Hotchkiss, whom he describes as a "puppet of the board fo directors."

Hotchkiss declined to comment on this or any other matter of the case stating that it was a personnel matter.

George Klocek, president of the board of directors of the ambulance association, also declined to comment on

Jones’ allegations and referred all questions to Hollo.

"It’s the ambulance’s position that the complaint is factually and legally groundless and that when this is exposed

to the light of day to the full review of the commission it will be revealed to be exactly that," said Hollo. "All

actions taken by Madison Ambulance Association concerning Mr. Jones or any other of its employees were

taken based on good cause and other reasonable factors other than age, disability or perceived over-edication."

"One thing needs to be stressed. Mr. Jones’ non-EMS related educational background never hindered his

advancement in Madison Ambulance Association," said Hollo. He added that the association evaluated Jones

and its other employees based upon past performance and overall qualifications. He said that when hiring or

promoting employees, Madison Ambulance chooses the most qualified candidates.

"There is nothing here that was done based on age, disability or over education, which is totally non-sensible,"

Hollo said.

In its response to Jones’ CCHRO complaint, the ambulance association stated why Jones did not qualify for a

full-time position when he came back from what he calls a leave of absence. The association said Jones was

offered the choice either to take a 12-month leave of absence or to voluntarily work per diem shifts and special

events as the ambulance needed him.

"The position of EMT-Plus was not a supervisory one, but rather merely added tasks to assist management in

day-to-day activities, such as stocking equipment. At the time this position was filled, the complainant was on

probation and, therefore, was not eligible to be considered for this position. He was on voluntary per diem

status (rather than full-time status), and he never applied for the position," the response reads.

Madison Ambulance has responded to Jones’ complaint by filing with the CCHRO. Jones now has the

opportunity to respond. Of the association’s response, Jones said "Most of it was taken out of context and

shows they don’t understand the situation and circumstances."

The CCHRO is designed to protect people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations

and credit transactions. Its criteria is based upon religious creed, alien status, learning disability, marital status,

familial status, lawful source of income, race, color, sex, age, national origin, mental illness/disability, sexual

orientation, mental retardation, guide dog access, ancestry, physical disability and criminal record. The EEOC

serves to ensure employers use fair hiring practices in regards to the above demographics. The EEOC has the

ability to audit an organization that it suspects has cagey hiring practices.

Although officials from both organizations declined to comment in detail on Jones’ individual complaint because

the case is still pending, the CCHRO did explain the purpose and value its organization has in protecting an

individual’s rights in employment disputes.

The complaint will first be assessed for its merit and validity for 90 days. If the commission determines merit, it

will retain the case. The case will then be assigned to an investigator and the CCHRO will have about six

months to investigate and resolve the case. In the event that the case can not be resolved between the two

parties, it will then be placed on the public hearing docket. A public hearing officer will then look over the

investigator’s report and either assign or invoke a remedy.

At the hearing, a commission staff attorney will present the evidence of discrimination found in the case. An

individual can come with private legal counsel, but this is optional. Jones is representing himself. After the

hearing, the hearing officer has 90 days to write up a report with the ruling. If the individual, the respondent or

the commission is unhappy with the decision, the hearing decision can be appealed and settlements can be

enforced in state courts. Remedies could include reinstatement to full-time employment with back pay,

according to Frank Malinconico, human rights and opportunities and opportunities representative at the

CCHRO.

Jones has one thought for how this all happened to lead to a lawsuit.

"All this happened because of poor management and lack of leadership-911 is reactive but when you run 911 it

should be proactive. Good paramedics don’t make good administrators," he said. "I’m not questioning the

quality of care rendered to Madison people…I am questioning the management and leadership to effectively

utilize paramedics. Madison Ambulance renders good care in spite of its board of directors."

Appeared in the Shore Line Times Jan. 26, 2000.

Return Home

Return to Journalism