EMS Providers Suing for Alleged Violation of Their First Amendment Rights

FDNY Paramedic Elizabeth Bonilla

The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. In other words, in other words, the first amendment acts as a protection of individuals against the government, freedom of speech. The first amendment guarantees freedom's concerning religion expression assembly and the right to petition it forbids congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It also guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. Additionally, it also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition the government.

 

For EMT John Rugen, and paramedics Elizabeth Bonilla, Alexander Nunez, and Megan Pfeiffer, the first amendment felt far from respectable after they were subjected to retaliation after speaking publicly about working conditions and health concerns regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. A lawsuit has been filed allegedly after the retaliation they had faced (Bloomberg law). 

 

This past April, the New York City Fire Department sent letters informing three paramedics including Elizabeth Bonilla, Alexander Nunez, and Megan Pfeiffer that they were restricted from treating patients following their complaint. As stated in the complaint, the letters gave no reason as to why they were put under restrictions in the first place. Additionally, EMT John Rugan, an officer of the Fire Department of New York was put on restricted status after the fire apartment initially suspended him for 30 days, claiming that he violated the New York Fire Department’s social media policy and privacy laws without providing any sort of evidence as seen in the complaint.

 

according to NPR's article about the apparent situation, spokesperson Nicholas Paolucci,  of New York City's Law Department, commented through email,“ The FDNY respects the First Amendment rights of its employees but those rights must be carefully balanced to respect the privacy rights granted under the law to patients receiving emergency medical care" 

 

According to Terry Meginniss (an attorney representing the EMS workers in the alleged lawsuit), stated that any implication that they have not respected their patient’s privacy is "absolute hogwash" (NPR) "These are the people who go out and treat people, and they have been living through incredibly difficult times."

 

Under the six clauses/ six freedoms of the first amendment, the treatment of John Rugen, Elizabeth Bonilla, Alexander Nunez, and Megan Pfeiffer from New York's Fire Department violates two of the six clauses of the first amendment: (3) Freedom of Speech and (4) Freedom of Press. Under clause three of Freedom of Speech, the individuals First Amendment rights were violated after the New York Fire Department restricted the workers for voicing their concerns about certain working conditions regarding the COVID-19 pandemic which was ultimately a punishment to the workers after expressing how they really felt regarding the current situation of working their jobs. Additionally, under clause four, Freedom of Press, John Rugan was put on restricted status after the fire apartment initially suspended him for 30 days, claiming that he violated the New York fire department social media policy and privacy laws without providing any sort of evidence as seen in the complaint. Regardless, John Rugan has the freedom to publish to social media as a freedom of press. The department failed to produce any sort of evidence about a "violation of the New York fire department social media policy" so there was no reason for Rugan's punishment of a 30-day suspension. 

 

In my opinion, honestly, I feel outraged just researching and reading about the situation, I can't even imagine how frustrated Bonilla, Nunez, Pfeiffer, and Rugan are feeling at this current moment. To work as paramedics and EMTs during a pandemic is obviously frightening and I believe their concerns about their working environments are completely valid and justified. They did not step down from the job they signed on for when things became frightening amidst the virus, their concerns should have been respected and listened to without any sort of punishment whatsoever. I am saddened and disappointed to have seen the way the New York Fire Department responded to these individual’s concerns; it was out of line. I have such a respect for first responders and their continuation to work as hard as they can on the front lines of their jobs especially during this virus, to see mistreatment towards any of them is frustrating. Instead of attacking the EMTs and paramedics, the New York Fire Department should have worked together with them to help allay their concerns so that those individuals could go back to work feeling safer and the fire department could go back to their job knowing that they helped solve a problem, instead, they are dealing with an alleged lawsuit of mistreatment and violation. 

 

https://www.ems1.com/legal/articles/4-ems-providers-sue-fdny-for-alleged-first-amendment-violations-u4BBayRFpTYIKIVR/

https://qns.com/story/2020/06/12/ems-workers-sue-fdny-for-alleged-violations-of-first-amendment-rights/

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/06/11/875161922/new-york-city-ems-workers-allege-retaliation-after-speaking-about-pandemic

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6941386/Barzilay-June-10-2020-Complaint.pdf

Our History and Framework of the Supreme Court

Today, we view the Supreme Court as civil and just, however, during the creation and expansion of the court through history, it was not always seen that way. 

 

The Supreme Court of the United States is in fact the highest federal court in the entire country and the head of the judicial branch of the United States government. Originally established by the United States Constitution, the supreme court has ultimate jurisdiction over all laws within the states and is ultimately responsible for overseeing the Authority and proceedings of those laws. 

 

The court is currently made up of nine justices and if needed the court has the power to check the actions of the other two branches of government which is the executive branch of the president and the legislative branch of Congress.

 

To understand the framework and makeup of the Supreme Court, it is important to understand the origin of it and how it came to be today. The Supreme Court was established in 1789 by the third article of the United States Constitution which also then granted Congress the power to create other subordinate federal courts. Additionally, the constitution permitted Congress to decide the organization of the Supreme Court. And the legislative branch first used this power with the Judiciary act of 1789. This act which was signed by President George Washington would indicate that the court would ultimately be made up of six justices who would serve on the court. After the Constitution was ratified, the government had moved to Washington in 1801. At this time, they were not seen as equal to the other branches of government. John Marshall was the first individual to strike down the act of Congress as unconditional unconstitutional as seen in Marbury versus Madison. He then earned the court’s ultimate respect as an equal branch of government. Later, this changed the way the court was viewed from the public point of view and also in the other two branches of government’s view. 

 

While faith and respect of the court lasted for about 50 years, it was broken when Dred Scott claimed freedom under an act of congress in the case of Scott versus Sanford. At the time, Roger Brooke Taney was the chief justice at an under his court, they ultimately ruled that Congress had no power to ban slavery in that black people could never be citizens. The decision ultimately weakened the court’s authority and ultimate respect. Eventually, the issue was resolved through the Civil War, and the constitution was amended to abolish slavery. It is pretty unnerving to me that this situation of great importance had to in fact be solved in the manner of war and violence, I wish at the time there was higher respect enough to just listen to another individual without having to bring violence to fight for rights.

 

Regardless of its rough rocky past, the court is now respected amongst many individuals today. The real question, however, is how we managed to get here. Many of today's justices claim they have a very specific way of going about certain cases, but they also have respect for each other and for the law and with that, they simultaneously take everything into consideration when choosing cases as well 

as their decision-making process. Furthermore, once justices actually come to a decision, they will write an opinion that normally takes about four weeks. Once the opinion is actually released, it is given to the press to become public knowledge.

 

As I stated before, obviously the foundation of the original Supreme Court had its issues with equality amongst many other setbacks on just the start to a foundation that was supposed to be civil, professional, and equal to all individuals who presented themselves to the court. It is quite baffling to me to imagine the level of disrespect certain individuals would receive in the eyes of the court and how hard people would have to fight just to be listened to, honestly, it's quite sad. The history of the United States is most certainly not unflawed,  but as we see in the current day, we have learned from our mistakes of the past and because of that, the supreme court is a living example of a new civil and just court system which originally built their foundation during an unjust and unequal time in history

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca8qSuWxcG8&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWRoXYRsaeo&feature=youtu.be

https://www.supremecourt.gov

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about

Coronavirus : Stay Home and Stay Quiet

Coronavirus- a virus that has caused mass economic, social, political, and personal change. What started as a single case, has turned our norm into mass economic and public shutdown. Across America, each one of us has experienced an impact of the virus in some way, shape, or form. Whether it be your hairdresser, athletic team, church, school, or business, the virus has managed to squeeze itself into everyone's personal lives one way or another. With the virus comes great frustration- quarantine, curfew, canceling of events, absence of schooling, government decisions, and honestly any shred of normalcy any of us had just a matter of months ago. 

 

Recently, an article published by Fox of Wilmington explored COVID and the constitution concerning the government's struggle to balance collective safety with personal autonomy. With the past few months being locked in with harsh restrictions and no end in sight to the virus, naturally, people are going to become a bit uneasy and worrisome regarding when or if their lives will ever return back to normal, even slightly. 

 

On the thirteenth of March, President Trump declared a national emergency and promised a robust federal response along with cooperation with the states. Since then, each individual state has responded differently to the virus while considering federal health guidelines. In Fox News’s article, an analyst has found legal disputes in every state along with claims that certain public safety measures are in fact violating individual civil liberty as guaranteed by the constitution itself.

 

“At this point, we’ve seen courts weigh whether certain stay-at-home orders and assembly orders are constitutional and they have been mostly deferential towards the state,” said Lata Nott, a First Amendment Fellow at the Freedom Forum. “And that’s because when they’ve done the balancing test, we’re still in fairly early days of this pandemic in it’s an emergency situation. And the idea behind it is that First Amendment rights are never unlimited and they need to be balanced with public health.”

 

Many lawsuits correlate directly to discrepancies over what is considered an "essential service". Critics have pointed out examples such as abortion clinics being staggered while thousands of non-violent criminals have been freed from prison. Additionally, other lawsuits concern privacy rights which include government monitoring the use of cell phones "minus personal data" to track the spread of the virus.

 

Talk about nonexistent normalcy - COVID has unorganized policies in direct regard to fundamental rights. How is that fair?

 

Here are just a few examples:

 

-In freedom of assembly, a challenge to New Hampshire is the prohibition on gatherings of 50 people or more

 

-In free speech, Newark, New Jersey officials had threatened to use the states "public alarm” and laws to prosecute those spreading false reporting on COVID-19 through social media

 

From Fox News's article, a quote I found that accurately highlighted this situation came from David French, a senior editor at The Dispatch: “You’re going to see different states taking different approaches. You’re going to see the president liking some of them and disliking others, but really having no authority to trump any given state’s approach to things,” said French. “Even though the overwhelming financial resources rests with the federal government, the overwhelming amount of legal power rests with the governors.” I found French’s quote to be very accurate and in sync with what has been going on. Every state really is cracking down on strictness differently. From my perspective here in Pennsylvania, I have certainly become frustrated with what seems like drawn out measures appointed by Governor, Tom Wolf.  For example, businesses that refrain from contact with other people that could easily follow the six-foot social distancing rule are still prevented from opening even though we are now approaching the green zone. 

 

In my opinion, while I believe that certain COVID-19 restrictions were more than necessary at the beginning and height of the virus, respectfully, I also believe that we are not in the same place as we were just a few months ago, meaning that certain restrictions should be lifted especially when it comes to limiting people in violation of individual civil liberty.   I think it is unacceptable for the government to be monitoring our cell phones even if it’s “minus the personal data” that really isn’t reassuring in the slightest? Additionally, there should not be a battle over what is essential when it comes to personal choice with healthcare- reproductive health care clinics and abortion clinics should be allowed to remain open regardless of the virus.  As an individual that has also experienced quarantine for months now, it would certainly be nice to see things be less strict especially since the curve of the virus is now flattening. Of course, I do still believe that certain measures need to be taken in order to maintain COVID-19 to prevent a future wave or continuous spread, they just don't have to be as intense as they were before.

 

https://foxwilmington.com/headlines/covid-and-the-constitution-governments-struggle-to-balance-collective-safety-with-personal-autonomy/

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/19/coronavirus-effect-economy-life-society-analysis-covid-135579

https://www.npr.org/2020/04/05/827758328/the-controversy-around-essential-businesses

https://thedispatch.com/people/5849328-david-french

Get to know me!

Hello! My name is Elise Coby and I am from Pennsylvania, I live about an hour north of Philadelphia on a horse farm with my family. I am a rising sophomore at High Point University and am majoring in journalism. I am also the Organizations Editor for High Point University's newspaper, The Campus Chronicle. The main focus of my studies here at High Point University is research and writing, as I have a passion for writing, but also science. After HPU, I hope to work for a job that allows me to publish articles and to write for magazines whether it's in research or writing about everyday life- or both! 

My two most proud accomplishments thus far would be the accomplishments of being accepted into High Point University as a student and the career I've had with my horse, Chase, in the show ring of horseback riding as a hunter/jumper. After just completing one year at High Point University, I have been offered countless opportunities to improve upon my education as well as opportunities to enhance and strengthen my writing skills for my future career in journalism. With all of this discovered in just a little bit under a year, I certainly can't wait to see what the next three years have to bring. My horse, Chase, lives in Pennsylvania and when I go home for breaks during the academic year, I try to see him and my team as much as possible. I have had Chase for a little bit over six years now. Going to horse shows with him brings me a great sense of accomplishment and joy in my life and it makes me realize that the competition is not always just about winning, but also doing things to experience events fully for enjoyment. I am blessed to have him.

 

Outside of class, along with being an equestrian, I am a track and field athlete, enjoy playing field hockey, and spending time with my family. Although home is in PA, I love attending college in sunny North Carolina and I hope to eventually move there!

 

Something fun/Interesting about myself is that I live on a horse farm, but on our farm, we also have 18 llamas! It can be quite strange to see the llamas next to the horses especially since there's so many of them, what an odd combination.

 

Thanks for reading! I hope you enjoy my blog :)