SUPERIOR Court Presiding Judge Roberto C. Naraja has affirmed the Civil Service Commission’s decision to terminate nine former firefighters for refusing the Covid-19 vaccine.
In a 25-page order, Judge Naraja stated that the CSC’s affirmation of the Department of Fire and Emergency Medical Services’ decision to terminate the firefighters was neither arbitrary nor capricious and was supported by substantial evidence that constitutes “just cause” under the NMI Administrative Code.
The judge said the terminations were “supported by substantial evidence based on the Agency’s reasonable belief that the Firefighters’ refusal to comply with the policy constituted insubordination and violated workplace policies.”
“The court’s finding is reinforced by the Firefighters’ failure to pursue available exemptions or provide legally recognized justifications for their non-compliance,” the judge said.
Likewise, the court rejected the firefighters’ arguments for expanding the “just cause” analysis to include broader considerations of mitigating factors, necessity-based analysis, or a fault-based framework.
Judge Naraja said these “frameworks, while potentially relevant in other contexts, are not required elements of the ‘just cause’ analysis under Commonwealth law, particularly in cases involving insubordination and policy violations rather than performance-based terminations.”
The judge said his review is confined to the established legal framework and does not extend to policy judgments or equitable relief.
The judge also finds “no basis to reconsider [the court’s] previous rulings on the Firefighters’ constitutional challenges, as they have not presented any new evidence, changes in controlling law, or extraordinary circumstances that would warrant departing from the law of the case.”
According to Judge Naraja, “the Agency’s decision to terminate the Firefighters was rendered during an unprecedented public health crisis that demanded extraordinary measures to protect both first responders and the public they serve. The Covid-19 pandemic created unique operational challenges for emergency response operations, where the potential for rapid virus transmission could severely compromise DFEMS’s ability to provide essential emergency services.”
He added, “Under these extraordinary circumstances, the Firefighters’ refusal to comply with the Policy directly impeded their ability to safely perform their duties and created undue hardship for DFEMS in accommodating unvaccinated personnel in high-risk roles. In light of the [DFEMS] Commissioner’s proper discretion in managing personnel decisions during this crisis, these extraordinary circumstances further justify the Agency’s decision to terminate their employment.”
The court acknowledged the firefighters’ “years of commendable service and their dedication to protecting the Commonwealth community. “
“Their commitment to public safety and willingness to place themselves in harm’s way to protect others exemplifies the highest ideals of public service. The Court recognizes that this outcome impacts not only the individual Firefighters but also their families, who have supported their service to the community,” the judge said.
However, “as a court of law, the court must apply the legal standards as written, even when doing so results in difficult outcomes for dedicated public servants,” he added.
Chief Solicitor J. Robert Glass Jr. represented DFEMS and CSC.
Background
In June 2021, former firefighters Paul Acebedo, Jose K. Angui, Allen T. Calvo, Cain C. Castro, Algernon A. Flores, Derek B. Gersonde, Shawn DLR Kaipat, Philip Kalen and Adam J. Safer, represented by attorney Joseph Horey, sued DFEMS and its former commissioner, Dennis Mendiola, for terminating them after they refused to take the Covid-19 vaccine.
In September 2021, the lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice by Superior Court Associate Judge Joseph N. Camacho, who said the plaintiffs had not exhausted all administrative remedies available to them when they filed their lawsuit.
In December 2022, the former firefighters refiled their complaint and added as defendants then acting-DFEMS Commissioner Jesse Mesa, in his official capacity only, and the Civil Service Commission. Later, DFEMS Commissioner Juan A. Pua was added as defendant, replacing Mesa.
The plaintiffs asked the Superior Court to reverse the decision of the Civil Service Commission affirming the fire department’s adverse action that terminated them for insubordination.
The plaintiffs wanted the court to issue an order finding their termination invalid and unlawful.
Moreover, they wanted to be reinstated in their pre-termination positions, with back pay, leave and benefits from the date of their termination.
In addition, they asked for an undetermined monetary award and damages for emotional distress.
