patching...
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!

Ocean City Pays Former Lifeguard $75,000 to Settle Lawsuit

Edwin Yust, 70, will receive a settlement to end his age-discrimination suit.

 

The city will pay a former Ocean City Beach Patrol lieutenant $75,000 in a confidential settlement to end an age-discrimination lawsuit.

Edwin Yust, 70, of Ocean City, had alleged in the lawsuit that the city deliberately cut back his work days and changed physical requalification standards to force his retirement.

The agreement (click on second PDF icon at right to see full text) was executed by Mayor Jay Gillian on Jan. 3. It includes no admission of guilt on the part of the city or of Yust.

"(Yust) agrees to keep the terms, amount, and fact of this agreement completely confidential, other than to say, if asked, that all matters related to the service or employment of releasor have been resolved," according to the settlement agreement.

Such nondisclosure terms are common in lawsuit settlements, but New Jersey courts have consistently upheld the public’s right to know in cases that involve public entities and the expenditure of public money. Ocean City taxpayers will ultimately pay for the lawsuit through increased premiums to the Atlantic County Municipal Joint Insurance Fund (JIF), which insures the city. Ocean City Patch obtained the settlement agreement through an Open Public Records Act request.

Yust, who was 68 at the time he filed suit in May 2010 against the City of Ocean City, then-Fire Chief Joseph Foglio, Deputy Fire Chief Charles Bowman and Ocean City Beach Patrol Operations Director Thomas Mullineaux, worked 51 years on the Ocean City Beach Patrol between 1957 and 2008. (Click on first PDF icon above to see full text of the suit.)

In 2008, Yust (along with two other administrative members of the beach patrol older than 60) were given a start date for the summer season a few weeks later than usual, according to the lawsuit. Prior to 2008, Yust typically began his season on Memorial Day Weekend and worked through end of summer, averaging 85 to 90 days per year. But in 2008, he was asked to start on June 20.

He lost 20 days of potential compensation (as an hourly employee) and his pension benefit was reduced accordingly, the lawsuit states.

Beach patrol pensions are based on the greater of gross wages for the last summer worked or the average of gross wages for last three summers worked.

"The directive that Yust delay his starting date was a deliberate gambit by defendants to force Yust to retire because of his age by reducing his salary and putting the amount of his pension in jeopardy," Wildwood attorney Frank Corrado writes on behalf of Yust in the lawsuit.

Yust also was one of five applicants in 2008 for a senior lieutenant position. While Yust had 51 years experience, including 37 as an administrator (lieutenant, administrative lieutenant and assistant captain), the two successful applicants were 36 and 39 years old with a combined eight years experience as lieutenants, according to the lawsuit.

Yust filed a complaint in September 2008 with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging age discrimination, and the city responded in February 2009, the suit states. In March 2009, the Ocean City Beach Patrol changed its requalification standards for guards in administrative positions — they would have to complete a fully timed swim and run (200-meter swim in 3:30 and 800-meter run in 3:45) just as all nonadministrative personnel. 

"The decision to abandon the tiered standards was a deliberate gambit undertaken to force Yust and other senior guards off the beach patrol because of their age, and was further undertaken in retaliation for Yust having filed an age discrimination complaint with the EEOC," Corrado writes in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit does not mention ethics complaints filed in January 2009 by former Ocean City Beach Patrol lifeguard Michael Hamilton alleging that some guards were allowed back onto the patrol without meeting requalification standards. Hamilton accepted a $50,000 settlement in August 2011 in a separate age-discrimination suit making similar allegations related to the 2008 OCBP decisions.

Yust was unable to meet requalification standards in 2009 and left the beach patrol.

In addition to monetary losses, Yust's lawsuit said he suffered injury to his reputation and sense of self. The suit sought compensatory and punitive damages, costs and fees.

The $75,000 settlement agreement requires Yust to dismiss claims in a separate complaint filed with the New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) related to the allegations in the lawsuit. It does not change his pension calculation.

The City of Ocean City settled another age-discrimination lawsuit in December 2008 — paying $450,000 to former Ocean City Beach Patrol Captain Oliver Muzslay.

City Council has met recently in sessions closed to the public to discuss several other lawsuits. Still pending are lawsuits from Jeffrey Moyer and Robert Petnick (alleging abuse by K-9 patrols), Oliver Muzslay (a separate suit seeking back payments on his pension), Monica Raab (alleging a violation of her constitutional rights after a confrontation with a police officer), John and Diane Myers (seeking permission to renovate and expand their home in the Beach and Dune Zone) and beachfront property owners (seeking damages because dunes have grown taller than stipulated in an easement agreement).

Related Topics: Ocean City Beach Patrol and Ocean City Lawsuits

Silver Mariposa

8:02 am on Monday, January 28, 2013

Here we go again. Another payout. Some people have really learned how to play this system. PLEASE Ocean City.... if you are guilty of the charges, then something must change in the administration; but...if not guilty, please prove it in court! We cannot afford another settlement!!!!

Reply
Comment_arrow

Michael Hamilton

3:10 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013

Hi Ho Silver,
It is not necessarily individuals of the "City Administration" that must change(go). The arrogance of behavior and actions of former / current "OCFD and OCBP Administrators" is likely to have been responsible for these settlements to OCBP personnel. Two of three individuals who in recent years dealt with the beach patrol issues, are now gone. Fire Chief Foglio retired(!). OCFD deputy chief C.Bowman has not been involved with the beach patrol for the last several years. "OCBP Director of Operations" [Captain, prior to 2001 OCFD/OCBP] Tom Mullineaux may still hold his position for 2013, and that is where change is much needed. The potential for additional settlements to former OCBP members is definitely out there. Bring back ethical management to the OCBP, as was the case with Captain Ollie Muzslay's 17yrs at the helm, and this stuff will end. Right Fred.

Comment_arrow

Eric Sauder

10:36 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013

I don't know if I agree with that. It is the adminstration that settles the suits. If you ask me that's a big part of the problem. In light of everything we do know, all the settlements, the vacated findings, etc. etc. etc., doesn't it make you wonder what is being covered up or who is being protected? Does someone have dirt on someone or what?

Comment_arrow

mp

9:48 pm on Thursday, February 7, 2013

The system only does a payout when they are guilty...no brainer!!!

vic

9:38 am on Monday, January 28, 2013

it only seems right that all life guards should have to pass the same qualifications test, whether they are administators or not. in the summer of 2008 many life guards were asked to report later in june in a budgetary move. mr. yust was not the only one. on the surface it appears to me that the city had a good case.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Michael Hamilton

3:28 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013

FYI ......the "only member" of the beach patrol who is excused from taking a re-qualification test, is the $41,000/ 2012, "director of operations Mullineaux" who plies the beaches in on a daily basis in OCBP vehicles. Mullineaux excused himself many years ago from demonstrating ability, and then received the blessing of OCFD Chief Foglio and City business administrator Dattilo.
Dattilo claimed the "top lifeguard is strictly an administrative position" and therefore need not demonstrate actual lifeguard ability. Those two individuals, also saw that Mullineaux went from $22,000 in 2008(a reasonable salary) to $41,000 in 2012(a ridiculous salary). Mullineaux left the OCBP administration group solely, for the purpose of "negotiating" his own salary. Dattilo and Foglio,(before he suddenly retired following a fire fighters large settlement) rewarded Mullineaux in spite of the fact that he is named in several beach patrol lawsuits and subsequent settlements as well as single-handedly lost "OCBP Certification" with the ""United States Lifesaving Association, by failing to maintain standards and or follow procedures. Incredibly, he could be back with the beach patrol in 2013 !
Where is the great OCBP Historian(?) Fred Miller on all these settlements, and with more in the works. Sure is quiet from Florida.

Steve Glaspey

9:39 am on Monday, January 28, 2013

Every day is Christmas on Ocean City! I hope this "gentlemen" has to pay taxes on his windfall, your figure 33% will go to his Wildwood attorney. He will still net enough for for a few dinners at the Crab Trap.

Reply

CTA

10:56 am on Monday, January 28, 2013

Lifeguarding is one off those jobs where you need to know when to walk away. Ocbp seems to have a bunch of folks who hang on and hang on long past the point of being realistically valid lifeguards.......guys need to man up and leave before they become a sad joke within the patrol.......a sad joke that can endanger lives.....

Reply
Comment_arrow

mel

6:32 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013

Know when to hang up the whistle-couldn't agree more! This is ridiculous. There may or may not be issues with beach patrol management but regardless this is a clear case of whining from someone who is working the system. Great role model for younger guards.

JJ

4:35 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013

If its confidential, why is the amount in the headlines?

Reply

Eric Sauder

5:20 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013

I had to laugh when I noticed it was someone from OC that filed suit against Subway over the foot long subs. So like this place.

Reply

wjs

5:57 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013

$75,000, add to that the previous payout of $450,000 and how much sand replenishment would there be for the southend? we are making progress. if any money is paid out for those suing over the height of the dunes, i believe all of their dunes and sand should be removed and relocated to the southend!

Reply
Comment_arrow

Eric Sauder

10:11 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013

What happened, so I heard, is a property owner near 34th street got a settlement from the city for $70,000 over the dunes blocking his/her view. Wouldn't you know it? Now a couple of more property owners are suing the City for the same thing.

Go figure. You know what ticks me off about all of this? I have to do without so I can pay my taxes, and this is how the money gets spent? Really its like taking money out of my wallet and putting it in someone else's.

John K

7:03 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013

I would think that a lifeguard job should be : a part time job ; should be for fit young people ONLY - not 50 or 60 year olds ; should not be a position with " retirement " I can not believe that even this corrupt town has retirement for part time elderly life guards. Stop the corrupt settlements - go to court !!

Reply

JadedJD

7:58 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013

Thing is that the city handled the plaintiffs wrong. For me the fault lies with the city for making a series of personel decisions that fall somewhere in the range of reckless to unethical to illegal. Blame the plaintiffs if that makes you feel good, but it accomplishes nothing if you are interested in reducing our exposure to these types of complaints. Also - the comments that age necessarily dictates ability to perform lifeguard duties seem stupid to me. Why not make the determination of fitness for duty on a case by case basis? As to the vic comment - typical for him: illogical, inane, and bitter. And fix that shift key, please. Your comments are annoying enough that we have to also be bothered by your war on the upper case.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Silver Mariposa

1:15 pm on Tuesday, January 29, 2013

"Fitness for duty" should include, as a minimum, for the lifeguard to pass the basic fitness test. I would not like to depend on a guard who could not swim or row as good as I can.

rick adams

11:19 am on Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Look to the City and not at the Lifeguard with 50 plus years of service. The city has made mistakes on the issues from the start with the OCBP, issue that need to be reviewed for the benefit of all.

Rick Adams

Reply

Yogi

4:29 pm on Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Silver - Brilliant. Don't take a Fitness to Post test.

Reply

John McShane

1:07 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013

Ed Yust should have retired years ago. Anyone who has worked the beach since the 70's is aware that Ed was not a good administrator

Reply
Comment_arrow

Michael Hamilton

1:27 pm on Saturday, February 2, 2013

Strictly your opinion McShane and total BS. A survey of the "anyone" who ever had Yust as an administrator would indicate the exact opposite. As an OCBP guard, to lieutenant, to Assistant Captain, Ed Yust did the job and did all well. Ed also worked the beach full time, unlike John McShane who somehow managed to be a "part time OCBP Administrator", while holding a year-round job. Who ever did that before or since! Yust had the respect of those who worked his area and the guards looked forward to being in his zone.
As a self-proclaimed"OCBP Administrator Extraordinaire" McShane, why don't you list your characteristics of being a "good administrator". One of yours might be the ability to prance around the beaches like some pompous ass exhibiting self-importance, while trying to intimidate young impressionable guards. Not all OCBP lifeguards in administration positions, have a "tude" of power and self importance, the result of which is now seen in settlements. Most people will agree that the "front-line red shirt guard" is the key OCBP position. Ever notice McShane, how Lieutenant Ed Yust would receive the loudest and longest applause at lifeguard gatherings? That itself, was an indication of the admiration of the working guards to a fair and very competent administrator such as Lieutenant Yust. Your statement would be accurate if it was directed at Mullineaux, but certainly not at Ed Yust. Shame on McShane.

mp

9:32 pm on Thursday, February 7, 2013

Poor McShane...never got the recognition or respect he wanted, but you have to earn that. You are and and have always been a pompous ass and that will never change. What goes around comes around, can't wait! I agree with Michael Hamilton that if your statement was directed at Mullineaux, then it would be correct. Mullineaux is a back-stabing S.O.B.. I hope one day the OCBP can bring back the integrity and comradery that it once had under the leadership of Capt. Lafferty, Capt. Muzslay and Asst. Capt. Yust...doubtful though with all the political BS in the town. Good luck to all who tarnished and changed the reputation of the OCBP....may the truth set you all free and you know who you are!

Reply

John McShane

1:40 pm on Friday, February 8, 2013

Good to hear from the lunatic ward at the old lifeguard's home

Reply

Michael Hamilton

2:57 pm on Saturday, February 9, 2013

A cogent comment from "part-time McShame", who "played all sides" to achieve and hold on to, an administrative position with the OCBP. I'll work when I can and what exactly did I do? McShame is likely to qualify, as one of Miller's Legends. Can't do better than that!

Reply

Roy H Zehner

11:34 pm on Tuesday, March 12, 2013

whew....glad everyone's happy and enjoying like...

Reply

Leave a comment