A federal judge determined last week that an aspiring firefighter who sued Denver for allegedly discriminating against her had not proven the city unlawfully terminated her because of race, sex or disability.

Charmaine Cassie, who is Black, alleged Denver unreasonably declined to extend her leave from the fire department in accordance with her doctor’s orders, choosing to terminate her instead. Cassie believed the department treated her less favorably than similarly situated White or male firefighters.

On Aug. 25, U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty sided with the city. The law did not require Denver to extend Cassie’s already-generous period of leave, he wrote, and there was no evidence the supervisor who approved Cassie’s dismissal was involved in any racist or sexist conduct within the department.

“Based on the investigation of her work restrictions and essential job duties, and given the indefinite nature of her physical limitations, she was terminated. Plaintiff does not demonstrate how a jury could find the real motivator to be her race, gender or disability,” Hegarty concluded.

At the same time, Denver chose not to dispute a series of remarks Cassie said she endured during her firefighter training – ranging from commentary on her hair and the size of her butt to an unnamed fire captain’s advice to “act like a slave.”

Cassie and Da Lesha Allen, who is also a Black woman, filed suit against Denver alleging repeated harassment and discrimination during their time as firefighter trainees. Last September, Hegarty resolved Allen’s claims in the city’s favor, leaving Cassie as the only plaintiff remaining in the case.

Cassie began the firefighter academy in July 2018, but she received an injury that necessitated medical leave prior to completing her training. The fire department did not allow her to graduate, but placed her on modified duty and assigned her to the next training in early 2019. However, Cassie again sustained an injury, requiring modified duties and deferment to a future academy.

During the third training, Cassie was injured once more. She also learned she was pregnant. Although Cassie graduated from the academy in early 2020, her pregnancy precluded her from immediately completing the nine-month firehouse assignment required of new, probationary firefighters.

With continued restrictions from her doctor, the city kept Cassie in a non-firefighting assignment through early 2021. In the summer and fall of 2021, Cassie received 29 possible reassignment options within city government, which she turned down.

Given Cassie’s work injuries, pregnancy and pregnancy-related injuries, Cassie received 364 days in total of modified duty or leave, without having ever started her firehouse assignment. 

On Oct. 13, 2021, Mary J. Dulacki, a high-level supervisor in the public safety department, deemed Cassie disqualified from her probationary firefighter position because she could not perform the basic functions of the job.

“Cassie has had numerous return to work dates pass without her clearance to work without significant restrictions,” Dulacki wrote.

In her lawsuit, Cassie alleged the city had a viable option to accommodate her continued medical restrictions: Place her on unpaid leave through December 2021, which was her doctor’s latest estimate of when she could return to work. She also insisted that duties the city listed for firefighters – quickly donning 50 pounds of gear and being able to carry a ladder, for example – were not “essential functions” of the job.

Cassie further noted that very few of Denver’s 1,000 firefighters were women or people of color, and the number of Black female firefighters was estimated to only be three. She argued other trainees who were not Black or not female were treated better than her in the academy, and Cassie had to endure comments about her body and hair and received advice to “act like a slave.”

The department “regularly withheld advantages from Ms. Cassie that it provided her male and/or Caucasian colleagues, held Ms. Cassie to harsher and stricter standards than her male and/or Caucasian colleagues, and forced her to endure an environment of hostility, unlike her male and/or Caucasian colleagues,” her lawyers wrote.

The city countered that Cassie’s indefinite leave precluded her from performing the functions of a firefighter, and she had already received more time on leave than any other probationary worker in her shoes. As for any racist or sexist conduct from department employees, the city argued those “stray comments” were unconnected to her job separation.

Hegarty agreed with the city. Its reason for terminating Cassie was non-discriminatory and related to her indefinite medical restrictions, he found. Moreover, the person who ultimately dismissed Cassie from the department did not appear to participate in any of the inappropriate commentary linked to Cassie’s race or sex.

“Discriminatory comments allegedly made by DFD employees at large do not prove that those who decided to terminate Plaintiff acted with discriminatory motive,” Hegarty wrote. “There is no evidence of any potentially discriminatory comment uttered by Deputy Executive Director Dulacki.”

The case is Cassie v. City and County of Denver.