Chicopee Retirement Board Unanimously Rejects Fire Chief’s Bid to Retire Healthy Senior Fire Fighter

April 11, 2013

Massachusetts Police and Fire Chiefs frequently file applications for involuntary retirement against police officers and fire fighters they believe are no longer able to work as a first responder. These applications typically happen after it is clearly established that the public safety employee is permanently disabled, either from a work-related injury or hazard (known as Accidental Disability) or non-work related injury (known as Ordinary Disability). Massachusetts law technically allows public employers seek the retirement of employees who are not disabled. This provision of the law is rarely used against employees able, willing and available to work because it interferes with the statutory and contractual rights of able employees to work as long as they want.

Yet, the Chicopee Fire Chief asked the Chicopee Retirement Board to retire a 61-year old veteran fire fighter because the Chief was upset with the amount of sick leave the fire fighter used. The fire fighter’s doctor confirmed that he remained in good health and could continue to work without any restriction. To the Chicopee Fire Fighters Association, Local 1710 IAFF and the Professional Fire Fighters of Massachusetts, the Chief’s application appeared to be a not-so-subtle form of age discrimination. It appeared the Chief sought to replace an older fire fighter with a much less compensated younger one.

Local 1710 Attorney David Rome advocated on behalf of the veteran fire fighter and against the Chief’s application. The fire fighter’s union representatives and supervisor appeared at the hearing to show their support, as did Jordan Lemieux, the PFFM District 5 Vice President. After presentations by Attorney Rome and a representative of the City’s health consultant, Meditrol, the Chicopee Retirement Board voted unanimously (5-0) to deny the Chief’s application. The Retirement Board counsel agreed that the fire fighter’s attendance was a personnel matter, not a retirement matter, and that the Chief was essentially attempting to retire someone because of age.

Related Attorney

subscribe to email updates