GO, MARY -- GO, GO, GO!!!

By Edwin Cooney

Due to the existence of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Mary Wolski got her job back the other day -- and a lot of people’s undies are in a bunch over it!

Mary Wolski was hired in the late 1990s as Erie, Pennsylvania’s first female firefighter. She had a spotless record until Thursday, December 28th, 2006 when she made a mood and drug-induced mistake.

Throughout the previous year, Mary had watched helplessly while her mother suffered from a staph infection. In the wake of her mother’s slow and painful death, Mary went into a severe depression and sought the support of a psychiatrist. Ultimately, she was taking six different drugs, some of which could bring on thoughts of suicide.

Then, on that fateful December day in 2006, Mary decided to end it. She traveled to her brother’s vacant home, filled the bathtub with old clothes and set them afire hoping that she would die of smoke inhalation. However, the heat was too intense so she doused the flames and then sought to cut her wrists. Subsequently, as the clothes were still smoldering in the tub, Mary’s colleagues at the Erie Fire Department became involved in her rescue.

Ultimately, the city of Erie fired Mary and Mary sued under the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Thus we have the debate:

Was Mary legitimately disabled? Does the ADA cover people with mental as well as physical disabilities? How significant was it that Mary, a firefighter, used fire to end her life? Might Mary’s rehiring bring about a dangerous degree of low morale in Erie’s fire department?

One of my very best friends lives in Erie and we’ll let him act as the judge for the lowest appeals court for the city of Erie and all right-thinking ADA supporters. This is what he wrote me.

OK, let's deal with Ms. Wolski's woes.

She had a spotless record as an Erie firefighter, a point for Mary.
She became depressed as a result of facing the long and difficult dying process of her mother, not Mary's doing, yet another point on Mary's side.
Indeed, she was under the care of a psychiatrist who had, one might argue, over medicated her, another point for Mary.

But as a firefighter, she set a fire, not a point for Mary. Granted, when she did so she was not in her right mind; and perhaps the fact that she had been a firefighter was part of the reason she chose fire, the destructiveness of which she had seen, first hand. But a firefighter who sets a fire, regardless of the accompanying circumstances, sacrifices his or her right to serve a community, putting out fires.

This kind of act is the unfortunate unlocking and opening of a hitherto nonexistent door; a door that once open, can be closed but can never be locked or eliminated. And the irreversible fact that the existence of such a door, having been brought to fruition by a servant whose responsibility it is to prevent the existence of such a door, should, in the view of this commentator, prevent that servant from serving in such a capacity wherein the opportunity is all too available to, once again, open that door.

The arrival of mental health challenges is almost always unfortunate. But the citizens of a community should not be put in a position wherein they might feel less than fully confident in the behavior of their public servants.

The death of a loved one is a trying time; but most individuals weather the process, and do so, as a rule, without abandoning a majority of their commitments to their chosen profession. A distraught firefighter who sets a fire is a troubled individual, one who deserves our empathy but not one who should be returned to the unspeakably difficult challenge of fighting fires in a community of more than 100,000 individuals. The Americans with Disabilities Act is a statute designed to level the playing field for members of our society who confront physical barriers, such barriers based on the presence of a physical limitation, not common throughout the rest of society. It is not, in my view, a statute which should allow an individual to return to an endeavor, the very nature of which the individual has transgressed, based on a temporary illness.

Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is herewith reversed with prejudice.

Respectfully submitted, Mr. Justice Chesterton

There are three questions before this court. The first is whether the city of Erie dismissed Mary Wolski with prejudice. Since the city fired rather than suspended her pending further investigation, the answer to that question is clearly in the affirmative.

The second question facing this court is Ms. Wolski’s condition at the time of the act. According to all testimony, Ms. Wolski was mentally and emotionally limited at the time she set the fire. The cause of her disability was physician proscribed drugs rather than the voluntary recreational abuse of drugs. As a person suffering from a disability, Mary Wolski had the right of protection and support under the ADA’s provisions that allow for overcoming barriers to employment. As this court sees it, the greatest barrier to forward progress is prejudice—and clearly, in this case, the city of Erie, Pennsylvania has shown prejudice throughout this unfortunate incident.

The third question before this court is the nature of Mary Wolski’s act. It must be observed that Ms. Wolski’s use of fire, which appears to particularly concern the good Justice Chesterton, was uniquely to her credit as opposed to her condemnation. Ms. Wolski’s use of fire was exceedingly skillful, limited and above all responsible. She set a fire in a bath tub, dousing it when she couldn’t use its effect. The fire was in a vacant house, controlled in its range and in its capacity to spread. No one was harmed nor was anyone intended to be harmed. Neither the city nor the district attorney chose at the time to indict her for the incident.

Ms. Wolski is now recovered. Her energy and determination for protecting the public is renewed. Released from the harsh medicines she was taking at the time of the incident, Ms. Mary Wolski is now fully capable of resuming her professional duties to which she has demonstrated unflagging dedication.

Accordingly, this court overturns the ruling of one Judge Chesterton with exceedingly vigorous prejudice!

Respectfully submitted,

Super Justice,
Edwin Cooney