Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—D. Md.: Annapolis firefighter/paramedic with PTSD advances failure-to-accommodate claim, (Aug 28, 2026)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

Two years after his promotion, in March of 2020, he suffered an injury on the job.

A former firefighter/paramedic for the City of Annapolis, fired after he suffered an on-the-job injury and subsequently developed post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder—which his providers linked primarily to the heightened responsibility of serving as a paramedic—may proceed to trial with his ADA and MFEPA failure-to-accommodate claims, a federal district court found. The city, pointing to the firefighter’s “horrible [] anxiety” related to “being a paramedic,” argued that he was unable to perform the essential functions of his position, but he produced evidence that what made his conditions unmanageable was bearing the “ultimate responsibility for patient care” that comes along with being an advanced life support provider (ALS), rather than a basic one (BLS), and the city’s undue hardship argument regarding his proposal to drop his ALS certification was undermined by the fact that “within fifteen days of [ ] [his] separation from service,” a Grade 13 BLS position became vacant (Dew v. The City of Annapolis, No. 24-3292-BAH (D. Md. Aug. 27, 2026)).

Firefighter II. In February of 2012, according to the court, the plaintiff was hired by the Annapolis Fire Department (AFD) as a Firefighter II and Emergency Medical Technician (EMT)-Paramedic, also known as an ALS provider. When he was hired, he had decades of experience as a firefighter/paramedic with other departments in Maryland and Washington, D.C.

ALS status. Upon his hire, he signed an agreement acknowledging his ALS status, and he agreed that if he wished to terminate that designation, he must make a written request to the Fire Chief. The agreement also specified that the request would be granted only if it was consistent with the needs of the AFD.

ALS or BLS. All AFD firefighters must either be ALS or BLS providers. BLS providers hold only EMT status, but ALS providers are certified to perform invasive procedures, involving, for example, intravenous access or advanced airway management, and to administer a wide variety of medications, whereas BLS providers may administer certain medications but cannot perform invasive procedures. The ALS provider generally has a higher level of medical duties and authority over the EMT when it comes to making medically related decisions.

One ALS provider every shift. AFD firefighters transport patients to the hospital via a medical unit, which is outfitted with ALS equipment. Accordingly, one ALS provider must be assigned to each of the city's five medic units every shift, and ALS providers are more often assigned to medic shifts than other firefighters. And in the plaintiff’s experience, he would often be the only paramedic present on those shifts.

Promoted. On March 9, 2017, he was promoted to Firefighter First Class (FF 1/C), a position that both ALS and BDS providers can occupy. The job description differentiates between ALS and BLS providers in terms of pay and the certification required. An ALS provider occupying the position is classified on the salary scale as Grade 14, whereas a BLS provider in the same position is classified as Grade 13. The essential job functions listed in the job description, however, are the same, regardless of what medical certification the first-class firefighter possesses.

On-the-job injury. Two years after his promotion, in March of 2020, the firefighter suffered an injury on the job. His left shoulder, neck, and back were injured when he caught a civilian who fell forward on top of him after calling EMS services for help. The firefighter was acting in his capacity as a paramedic on the medic shift at the time of the injury.

Return to work and anxiety, depression. Approximately three months after the injury, he returned to work, but after his return, he began experiencing anxiety attacks and depression related to his role as a paramedic. He described experiencing a mental health episode while watching an accident scene on television, for instance. He reached out to colleagues, including his battalion chief, about these experiences, and he described his struggles during this time as related to the knowledge and anxiety of being “ultimately responsible for this person's life, for making decisions or -- or potentially making the wrong drug calculation[.]”

Email to chief. In July 2020, he was assigned to the medic unit, and on July 15, he sent an email to the fire chief and other city employees informing them that he had been dealing with “some challenging mental issues which include anxiety attacks, and depression” and that the issues were having “a negative impact” on his ability “to effectively perform [his] job.”

Leave request. He requested to be placed on leave and to use the city's Employee Assistance Program (EAP) while he searched for a new doctor. In a July 21, 2020 email, a deputy chief encouraged him to use the EAP, as well as the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) Center of Excellence. The deputy chief also informed him that he had only 30 hours of sick leave remaining and encouraged him to apply for leave under the FMLA. A letter from the chief echoed those sentiments and provided resources that same day. The plaintiff began using leave through his accrued sick leave and FMLA shortly thereafter. His FMLA leave ultimately lasted from July 12, 2020 to October 5, 2020. He also took short term disability from July 12, 2020, until its exhaustion on January 23, 2021.

Diagnosis. Early during his leave, on July 24, 2020, he began receiving treatment through the IAFF, where he met with a licensed clinical social worker. A few days later, he also began treatment with a mental health provider, starting with an initial psychiatric evaluation and medical management visit. He was diagnosed with major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder by both providers.

Stressors. In therapy, he discussed the stressors of his job, and one provider observed that while he did not struggle with the duties of being a firefighter, “[b]eing a medic has a lot of pressure and increases his anxiety.” The physician recommended that he request to drop his paramedic duties by writing a letter to the AFD Chief upon returning to work.

Accommodation request letter. On September 30, 2020, he sent the chief a letter requesting the accommodation of a demotion to Grade 13 Firefighter First Class, removing his paramedic duties as an ALS provider. In the letter, he stated that he had “been diagnosed... with moderate depression and generalized anxiety disorder resulting from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.” He said his medical providers agreed “it would be detrimental to [his] recovery to continue to serve as a paramedic as that is a major trigger for [his] PTSD,” but that he could otherwise continue working as a firefighter. This was, in other words, a request to drop his ALS certification and continue as a BLS provider.

Independent medical exam. The chief then sent a request to the city's HR office for an independent psychological fitness for duty examination, and an examiner concluded that “[t]o the extent possible, it is recommended that FF/PM [plaintiff’s] desire to work as a firefighter be accommodated" and that "FF/PM [plaintiff] is psychologically fit to return to duty as a firefighter but... it would not be appropriate for him to be assigned as a paramedic." A revised version of that report, however, stated that he could not return as both a firefighter and paramedic “[s]ince the official job description melds the jobs of firefighter arid paramedic" and "[plaintiff] said that he feels permanently unable to continue working as a paramedic." The independent examiner thus concluded that he could not, "at this time, be considered psychologically fit for duty."

Discharge. After reviewing the independent examiner’s report, the chief was concerned about how the firefighter would be able to respond as a BLS provider. After the exam, however, the firefighter did not hear from anyone on behalf of the city until the chief called to notify him of the city's intention to fire him. Shortly thereafter, on November 12, 2020, the chief issued a letter notifying him of the chief’s intent to terminate his employment, effective January 1, 2021.

As the basis for the termination, the chief cited the independent examiner’s report opining that the firefighter was “not considered psychologically fit for duty” and the lack of medical documentation indicating that his “condition will ever improve sufficiently to allow [him] to return to full duty.” The chief also noted that, for the period the firefighter had been on leave, AFD had been relying on overtime and staffing changes to temporarily fill his role, which the chief said could not continue indefinitely.

Lawsuit. The firefighter sued in state court in October 2024, bringing two counts of disability discrimination: the first arising under the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act (MFEPA) and the second arising under the ADA. The city removed the case to federal district court in November 2024 and filed its answer to his complaint shortly thereafter. The parties completed discovery in November 2025, and the city moved for summary judgment.

Qualified individual. The court denied the city’s motion. The city, pointing to the firefighter’s “horrible [] anxiety” related to “being a paramedic,” argued that he was unable to perform the essential functions of his position, but he had produced evidence that what made his conditions unmanageable was bearing the “ultimate responsibility for patient care” that comes along with being an ALS rather than a BLS. Here, although the job description for his position “melds the essential job functions together for ALS and BLS first class firefighters at the AFD,” the court observed, “even the job description also supports the conclusion that there is some distinction between what is required of each position, given that the certifications for the positions are different.” In light of the conflicting evidence produced on this point, the court concluded that there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was unqualified for a BLS position.

Undue hardship. The city argued that the chief had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for denying his request for demotion: Demoting him would have created an undue hardship. Again, the court was not definitively persuaded. According to the city, permitting the firefighter to drop “his ALS certification would have left Plaintiff's shift with eight ALS providers, requiring either a more frequent rotation for the ALS providers on the medic unit and/or personnel changes.”

Given that the firefighter was not actively working at the time he requested the accommodation, however, “the hardship created by losing and having to replace an ALS provider is somewhat undermined,” the court observed. In addition, a deputy chief, whose responsibilities included preparing and managing the department's budget, testified that he did not recall any specific concerns regarding budget management at the time. Finally, the city’s undue hardship argument regarding the firefighter’s proposal to drop his ALS certification was undermined by the fact that “within fifteen days of [ ] [his] separation from service,” a Grade 13 BLS position became vacant.

The case is No. 24-3292-BAH.

Judge: Hurson, B.

Attorneys: Timothy Francis Maloney (Joseph Greenwald and Laake) for Christopher Dew. Kerry Berger, City of Annapolis, for The City of Annapolis.

MainStory: TopStory DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge EmployeeLeave MarylandNews GCNNews