Preserved Topic: Is it discrimitation? (Page 1 of 1)

I''m watching a local news story about a Berkeley fireman.
It seems he has been put on desk duty and not allowed to fight fires. The issue is this.
The gentleman has a facial hair condition where shaving his beard causes ingrown hairs which cause infections. For this reason he only shaves his beard down to a stubble to prevent this. However Cal-OSHA (California Ocuupational Safety and Health Administration) has as state law which says that firemen must have clean-shaven necks/throat areas. The issue is that the stubble or hair would preven respirators from sealing tightly around the face.

Now the gentleman is suing the city of Berkeley and Cal-Osha to get back off of desk duty. However because the condition he has is a condition that affects primarily African Americans part of his lawsuit is based on racial discrimination.

Now I just don't think this is valid. I can see suing under the Americans with disabilites act but I don't see this as discrimination since the law was put in place for the safety of all fire-fighters and is not based on race. (I honestly feel bad for this guy he seemed like a really nice fellow and the kind of guy I'd want around if my house was on fire)

What are your thoughts?


Walking the Earth like Kane

I think he oughta get another job. Some people have conditions that don't favor certain jobs, das it. Now if he's had the job forever (and this is a recently passed regulation) and knows no other trade and would be hard pressed to find work at his age or something like that then his employer should take that into consideration and find him something else to do or do what they can. Something that's in line with his service you know? Ahhh utopia...

The discrimination-based suit thing is despicable.

Jason

His claiming it is partly racial discrimination is a crime against humanity. I am *very* serious in my choice of words there.

I say that as long as he *and* his family are willing to sign a contract stating they will *not* sue after he dies as a result of not being able to get the respirator on if needed, THEN let him go back to fighting fires.

I also find it terribly ironic that one of the policies of the most liberal state next to Hawaii, has come full circle and bumped into one of the very people they were *supposedly* designed to help. I can't believe they are still using the term "fireman" in Berkeley anymore. Did anybody hear about somewhere in Scotland they were dumping the term "firefighter" because it sounded too violent? Where will this crap end??????

.

[This message has been edited by moaiz (edited 07-12-2001).]

ok, I am not a guy, so maybe one of you male types can answer this : why not use an electric shaver? Would not that solve the problem? Wow moaiz - so it is a valid med condition... hmmm.

but seriously, if he cannot get a good clean seal with the respirator (as in smoke/fumes will get into his lungs), that puts the other firefighters on his team at risk - but then again, if he shaves, and gets pus all over the respirator mask -- eeeewww, hope those things are assigned!


...So if "firefighter" sounds too violent, what will they be called? Fire-extinguishers? fire-persons?



[This message has been edited by lotiss (edited 07-04-2001).]

Yeah, I looked around and found this:

In January, the Scottish Fire Service Fairness and Diversity Forum in Edinburgh declared that the term "firefighter" was "too aggressive," thus deterring women from aspiring to the job, and recommended that the title be changed to "firemaster." [San Jose Mercury News-The Scotsman, 1-16-01]

I'm sure we could all come up with something better than FireMaster. Fire Disposer is pretty good. I'm going to suggest Fire Suppression Facilitator.

Oh *very* well played, timothymcnulty!

mm, but then we're going to need some Fire Pschologists while we're at it. then we'll have to institute fire rehab centers....