Thread: Lifeguard loses job over assisting swimmer outside of patrol zone

Hallandale Beach Lifeguard Fired For Leaving His Zone To Rescue Drowning Man | NBC 6 Miami

This is ridiculous.

A Hallandale Beach lifeguard was fired after he said he left his post to rescue a man drowning outside the zone he was hired to patrol.
Lifeguard Tomas Lopez told NBC 6 that on Monday he was alerted by beachgoers that a man was struggling in the water, which was part of unguarded territory outside the lifeguard zone. He said he raced out to try and help him. A sign warning beachgoers to swim at their own risk separates the two zones.
"I was on stand, and guests came up to me and told me there was someone drowning, that people were screaming and so I started running in the direction,” he said.

I think the bigger concern is what if he went to save that guy and there was an issue in his zone? People in his area are expecting a lifeguard on duty and if hes saving someone else they his company is liable. Still retarded that he got fired for saving a guy.

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

That he has no recourse shows how lame worker protections are in the US. In most European countries, common sense is used when determining if a company has grounds for dismissal. There's no way this would have held up in court here.

I don't think it's gone to court yet. But don't get all fired up on the "no recourse" brigade yet sparky. Florida is a "right to work" (technically "At-will") state (though that's a bit of a misnomer in a lot of ways). That means,basically, employees can effectively leave without notice for any reason, but they can also be let go without notice for any reason. There are some exceptions to that in Florida, but not nearly as many exceptions as is standard in most other US states.

Having lived and worked in Florida before I can honestly say that I've seen "Right to Work/At-will" function appropriately and inappropriately so it's not all bad. Application in this instance is definitely suspect though. I'd imagine that if he takes it to court he'll win out as life is more important than possibly liability and it might fall under one of the policy or common law exceptions recognized.

Originally Posted by Langrad

I think the bigger concern is what if he went to save that guy and there was an issue in his zone? People in his area are expecting a lifeguard on duty and if hes saving someone else they his company is liable. Still retarded that he got fired for saving a guy.

I know what you're getting at. And I can understand the potential risk, however I think that adage "A bird in hand is worth two in the bush" is applicable here in that it's better to save a life than it is to stand ready for a potentially unrealized emergency.

That the owner/CEO of the company is "investigating" and claims he will "make right" whatever wrong is determined in the investigation means that he's probably already recognized the error of his choice or is bowing to public pressure. In either case, it likely means that the termination policies and procedures at that company will see some revision and that's not a bad thing as they obviously need some review.

Yes - I agree. But when has common sense and the law ever truly intersected or been friends? It's not often.

So....

Florida is a right to work state to an extreme. This however is just stupid.