Haavistola v. Community Fire Co. of Rising Sun
| Decision Date | 07 January 1994 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. S 90-1637. |
| Citation | 839 F. Supp. 372 |
| Parties | Paula HAAVISTOLA v. COMMUNITY FIRE COMPANY OF RISING SUN, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
George A. Nilson, Piper & Marbury, Susan Goering, American Civ. Liberties Union of Maryland, Thomas Page Lloyd, Awilda R. Marquez, Piper & Marbury, Baltimore, MD, Deborah A. Jeon, American Civ. Liberties Union, Cambridge, MD, Bruce T. Carton, Law Office, Columbia, MD, for plaintiff.
Roger N. Powell, Law Office, Pikesville, MD, for defendants.
Roger N. Powell, Law Office, Pikesville, MD, Anthony Victor Teelucksingh, Larry M. Wolf, Whiteford, Taylor and Preston, Baltimore, MD, for Kenneth E. Morris.
Richard D. Bennett, U.S. Atty., Baltimore, MD, Thomas P. Bernier, White and Karceski, Towson, MD, Joseph J. Mahoney, Law Office, Elkton, MD, for Kenneth E. Truitt.
In an earlier opinion in this case, reported at 812 F.Supp. 1379, this Court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the plaintiff's claims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, holding, as to the former, that the plaintiff was not an employee of the volunteer fire company of which she was a dues-paying member, and, as to the latter, that the fire company was not a state actor for purposes of section 1983, in that it was a private entity performing what had not, in Maryland, been a traditional governmental function. The facts are fully set forth in this Court's prior opinion.
The United States Court of Appeals disagreed with this Court's grant of summary judgment, reversing and remanding the case in an opinion reported at 6 F.3d 211. After remand, the two governing issues (without a favorable finding on which plaintiff could not maintain her federal claims) were separated for trial, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(b). The issues were tried to a jury in a four-day trial, during which plaintiff submitted hundreds of exhibits, including many statutes and the like discussed in the Fourth Circuit's opinion, called two expert witnesses, and otherwise strongly and competently presented and argued her case.
At the end of the trial, a special verdict form was submitted to the jury, asking for its findings, yes or no, on the questions of whether the plaintiff was an employee of the fire company and whether it acted under state law. After a little more than two hours of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict for the defendants on both issues submitted.
In view of the fact that fire and other non-police emergency protection is overwhelmingly provided in Maryland by its 356 volunteer fire companies, thus making their status a question of prime public interest, and in the hope that courts addressing this issue as a matter of law in the future might hereby be assisted in their analysis, this jury's verdict should be made known to the legal and lay communities by way of a published opinion. The jury was obviously quickly convinced that members of a volunteer fire company are not its employees, despite their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kemether v. Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Ass'n
...to PIAA in return for benefits distinguishes this case from Haavistola v. Community Fire Co., 6 F.3d 211, 221-22 (4th Cir.1993). In Haavistola, the issue was whether insurance and other benefits were "indirect but significant remuneration [for plaintiff's services] ... or inconsequential in......
-
Todaro v. Tp. of Union
...a jury concluded that such benefits did not suffice to contravene plaintiff's status as a volunteer. See Haavistola v. Community Fire Co. of Rising Sun, 839 F.Supp. 372, 373 (D.Md.1994). In this case, the Court finds that the benefit of jobs-in-blue eligibility is so indirect and contingent......
-
Neff v. Civil Air Patrol
...was not an "employee" within the definition of Title VII (and that fire companies were not state actors under § 1983). Haavistola, 839 F.Supp. 372 (D.Md.1994). With the exception of the appellate Haavistola opinion, every case discovered by this Court concludes that unpaid volunteers are no......