|
|||||
|
Positive Cocaine Test Gets 5-Year Veteran Firefighter Dismissed In a recommendation issued July 28, ALJ Julio Rodriguez explained that Firefighter James Lyon had tested positive for cocaine in March 2006 during a random drug test after he used cocaine in a car with a woman he met at a bar. Cited Family Concerns The Firefighter's attorney, Robert Gallo, had argued that the Fire Department had not supplied adequate evidence; however, Mr. Rodriguez noted "respondent did not offer any evidence that the procedure was not random." Mr. Lyon had been with the department since 2003 and had no disciplinary record. His attorney had also asked the hearing officer for leniency — while the department was seeking termination — because the Firefighter was under stress due to caring for his elderly grandmother and "worrying about the fate of his brother, who was serving with the United States Army in Afghanistan." The Firefighter's commanding officer, Capt. Peter Tronolone, also told OATH that Mr. Lyon's work was "very satisfactory" and that the ALJ should have not recommend termination. "While respondent may have had significant stress in his life, including worries about the health of his grandmother and the safety of his brother in the army, this falls short of the extraordinary mitigation required for a recommendation of a penalty less than termination," ALJ Rodriguez said. The judge added that he lost sympathy for Mr. Lyon during his admission about using cocaine. A Less-Noble Excuse "When asked on cross-examination if he took cocaine in order to deal with the problems he was facing, respondent answered, 'Also in part to score with the girl,''' Mr. Rodriguez said in his decision. "Respondent was aware of the department's drug policy, but he was 'wasn't thinking about [it]' when he choose to ingest cocaine. His plea for a second chance must fail in light of the department's strict policy and this tribunal's precedents." Mr. Gallo had sent a letter in defense of his client to Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta following the judge's statement, reiterating his point that mitigating circumstances should be taken into account before firing him. |
|||||