Posts in category: IFSJ Exclusives

Based on a detailed review of court opinions, tribunal findings and arbitration rulings, IFSJ examines where fire services are drawing the line on ‘free speech’

Across multiple jurisdictions, fire services have taken a firmer line on speech that colleagues, partner agencies or the public regard as degrading, discriminatory or supportive of violence. Some of that speech has occurred in workplace meetings. Some has appeared in private messaging threads. Much of it has surfaced on social media accounts that identify the author as a firefighter or officer.

When such speech becomes visible beyond its original audience, organisations frequently rely on conduct unbecoming provisions, dignity at work policies and social media standards that apply on and off duty. In several cases, dismissal has followed. In others, the sanction has been reduced on appeal because of procedural flaws or proportionality concerns.

This IFSJ feature reviews cases where two elements are clearly documented in a verifiable source. First, the exact wording attributed to the firefighter or officer. Second, the employer’s stated rationale for dismissal or discharge, whether recorded in a tribunal judgment, court opinion or attributed official statement.

UK

Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service

“old haggard for her age” and “pull a pig”

In Mr P Langton v Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service, the Employment Tribunal recorded remarks made by Crew Commander Pete Langton during a meeting on 22 December 2022 concerning a woman whose rescue he had attended days earlier. The full Employment Tribunal reserved judgment PDF is publicly available, alongside the official GOV.UK decision page.

The tribunal decision records that in a contemporaneous email dated 5 January, a colleague wrote that Langton “referred to the woman (casualty) and her age telling the group she looked old haggard for her age.” The judgment also examines the disputed “pull a pig” comment, detailing how it was interpreted during the investigation and how the dismissing officer understood it.

Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service treated the remarks as gross misconduct and dismissed Langton. The tribunal accepted that misconduct occurred and accepted that conduct was the reason for dismissal. The unfair dismissal finding centred on investigatory precision. The tribunal found there was a lack of clear findings about what was actually said and criticised reliance on broad characterisations such as “misogynistic and sexualised” without clearly tying those labels to precise established facts. It also concluded that an erroneous assumption influenced part of the decision making regarding the “pull a pig” element.

This case illustrates how workplace remarks can trigger dismissal in UK fire and rescue services, while also showing how tribunals closely scrutinise the clarity of findings and reasoning.

USA

Chicago Fire Department

“All Lives Splatter” and “Hope she chokes on something”

In Inendino v. Nance-Holt et al., the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois set out the posts and the employer response in a published memorandum opinion. The full court decision records that firefighter and EMT Sam Inendino was terminated after a series of Facebook posts.

The decision states that one post included a photograph of then Mayor Lori Lightfoot captioned “Hope she chokes on something.” It also records a meme captioned “All Lives Splatter” and another caption connected to violent imagery that read “Good for him should aim for the torso!!!”.

The court opinion discusses complaints received, the investigation route and the connection between the posts and Inendino’s public identification as a Chicago Fire Department employee on his Facebook profile. The City defended the termination as consistent with departmental rules governing conduct and professionalism. The court ultimately granted summary judgment in favour of the defendants.

This case demonstrates how public social media posts, especially those linked to identifiable employment, are documented and assessed within formal litigation.

Howard County Department of Fire and Rescue Services

“lets all kill someone with a liberal”

In Buker v. Howard County, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reproduced the exact Facebook post that led to Battalion Chief Kevin Patrick Buker’s termination. The full Fourth Circuit opinion PDF records that while on duty he wrote:

“My aide had an outstanding idea . . lets all kill someone with a liberal . . . then maybe we can get them outlawed too! Think of the satisfaction of beating a liberal to death with another liberal . . . its almost poetic . . .”

The opinion also records a reply containing discriminatory language and Buker’s response: “Lmfao! Too cool Mark Grutzmacher!”

The court quotes the department’s Code of Conduct, which required employees to conduct themselves “at all times, both on and off duty, in such a manner as to reflect favorably on the Department.” It also cites the policy definition of conduct unbecoming as behaviour detrimental to public trust or impairing operational efficiency. The opinion states that after formal charges and a pre-termination meeting, the fire chief terminated Buker’s employment.

The appellate record provides a clear example of how exact wording, policy clauses and termination decisions are preserved in a formal judicial document.

Forrest City Fire Department, Arkansas

“I can’t breathe!” and dismissal for “egregious” conduct

In Melton v. City of Forrest City, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals examined the termination of firefighter Steven Melton. The published Eighth Circuit opinion PDF describes a Facebook image depicting a fetus in the womb with a rope around its neck and the caption “I can’t breathe!”

The opinion records that the mayor received complaints and was concerned about community reaction. It states that after reviewing the post and discussing it with officials, the mayor fired Melton over the image’s “egregious nature.”

The court opinion discusses the legal standards applied to public employee speech and the alleged disruption. The record makes clear both the wording that triggered the discipline and the employer’s stated reasoning for dismissal.

Miami Fire Rescue

“Who cares? Another dead cop”

In August 2022, Miami Fire Rescue terminated firefighter Kevin Newcomb after text messages he sent in a group chat became public. The wording is quoted in full in a Business Insider report.

The article reproduces his message beginning: “Who cares? Another dead cop, probably against gun control.” It continues with: “Cops exist for the government to exercise its monopoly on violence.” and ends with an expletive directed at police.

The same report quotes Miami Fire Rescue Chief Joseph Zahralban, who said the texts made it “impossible” for Newcomb to “carry out his duties as a first responder in the City of Miami.” The department described the messages as “conduct unbecoming of a Miami Firefighter” and said they showed “a disregard for human life” and “a violent and antagonistic stance towards civil servants.”

Newcomb later issued a public apology, which is also quoted in the same article.

This case shows how private group messages, once public, can be treated as incompatible with continued service.

Toledo Fire and Rescue Department, Ohio

“Wish the guy was a better shot”

In September 2025, Toledo Fire and Rescue investigated Lieutenant Jeffery Schroeder over a Facebook comment following the killing of political commentator Charlie Kirk. The wording was reproduced in a 13abc news report.

The post read: “Thoughts and prayers. Totally preventable and avoidable if not for the policies and beliefs of people like Charlie Kirk and his uneducated hateful ilk. Wish the guy was a better shot. Charlie Kirk offers nothing but hate and division to society. No one would miss him and discourse would be better without him.”

The same report quotes Fire Chief Allison Armstrong stating that the department exists to serve the community with “impartiality, respect, and professionalism” and that the incident had affected trust.

Subsequent reporting and a filed complaint, available as a federal court complaint PDF, describe the charges as including conduct detrimental to the good order and discipline of the department and violations of social media policy. The complaint states that the fire chief terminated Schroeder’s employment on 12 November 2025.

Canada

Toronto Fire Services

“swat… reset her brain”

Toronto Fire Services terminated firefighter Lawaun Edwards following a Twitter exchange that became public. A detailed summary of the arbitration outcome is available on CanLII Connects.

The summary quotes the arbitrator’s description of the tweet about “swatting a girl on the back of her head to reset her brain.” It records that the arbitrator found the tweet “inappropriate, insulting to women, and offensive because it appears to encourage the physical abuse of a female.”

The employer had discharged Edwards following investigation. The arbitrator set aside the discharge and substituted a three-day unpaid suspension, finding that discipline was warranted but that discharge was disproportionate.

This decision demonstrates how off duty speech connected to identifiable employment can lead to discharge, while also showing how proportionality is assessed in labour arbitration.

Observations for fire and rescue leaders

Across these cases, employers relied on written conduct standards that extend beyond the station floor. The policy language varies, but the recurring themes are professionalism, conduct unbecoming and the maintenance of public confidence. In the Howard County opinion, those standards are quoted directly. In Chicago, the posts were preserved in a federal court record. In Buckinghamshire, the tribunal focused on clarity of findings. In Toronto, the arbitrator focused on proportionality.

The strongest disciplinary cases are those where the employer records the exact words, identifies the relevant policy clause and sets out clearly why the conduct meets that definition. The cases that falter tend to falter on process, not on the existence of the speech itself.

What these cases show in practice

Policies tend to rely on the same concepts, even when wording differs

Across the UK, United States and Canada, employer statements and formal decisions return to a similar set of concepts, even where the drafting varies. Conduct unbecoming, professionalism on and off duty, dignity at work and preservation of public confidence appear repeatedly in dismissal letters, policy extracts and judicial reasoning.

In Buker v. Howard County, the reliance on those concepts is explicit because the Fourth Circuit opinion quotes directly from the department’s Code of Conduct. The policy required employees to conduct themselves “at all times, both on and off duty, in such a manner as to reflect favorably on the Department” and defined conduct unbecoming as behaviour detrimental to public trust or impairing operational efficiency. The termination decision was then framed squarely within that policy language.

A similar pattern appears in the Miami case. The Business Insider report quotes Miami Fire Rescue describing the messages as “conduct unbecoming of a Miami Firefighter” and stating they demonstrated “a disregard for human life” and “a violent and antagonistic stance towards civil servants.” The terminology differs slightly from Howard County, yet the underlying themes are consistent.

In Toledo, the 13abc report quotes the fire chief emphasising “impartiality, respect, and professionalism” as core standards, again situating the discipline within organisational values rather than purely personal opinion. The language used across these jurisdictions signals a shared understanding that speech becomes a conduct matter when it affects credibility, impartial service delivery or workplace dignity.

Evidence quality affects outcomes

The way the evidence is recorded often determines how a dismissal withstands scrutiny. In Mr P Langton v Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service, the Employment Tribunal judgment accepted that misconduct occurred and accepted that conduct was the reason for dismissal. The unfair dismissal finding arose because the investigation and decision record did not articulate findings with sufficient clarity and precision. The tribunal examined how the phrases were described, what was found to have been said and how those findings were linked to dismissal.

By contrast, in Chicago and Howard County, the posts are reproduced verbatim in formal judicial opinions. The Northern District of Illinois decision in Inendino sets out the captions word for word. The Fourth Circuit opinion in Buker does the same. When the evidential record is embedded in a published opinion, the employer file is easier to trace because the wording, the policy basis and the termination decision are all documented in one place.

The Toronto arbitration summary provides a different example. The CanLII Connects analysis records the tweet, the employer’s decision to discharge and the arbitrator’s reasoning in substituting a suspension. The clarity of the documented wording allowed the arbitrator to focus on proportionality rather than on reconstructing what was said.

The forum shapes the argument

The type of forum in which a dismissal is tested influences how employers frame their decisions from the outset. A UK Employment Tribunal record, such as the one in the Langton case, concentrates on procedural fairness, the clarity of findings and whether dismissal falls within the range of reasonable responses. That lens shapes how investigation reports and dismissal letters are later examined.

In US federal court, as illustrated in the Inendino decision and the Buker opinion, the focus shifts to constitutional considerations, operational disruption and the balance between employee speech and public employer interests. The employer record is tested against those standards.

In Canadian labour arbitration, as shown in the Toronto Fire Services arbitration summary, proportionality and the relationship between off duty conduct and workplace reputation take centre stage. Arbitrators examine whether discharge is excessive in light of the proven conduct and the employee’s record.

These differences influence how fire services draft policies, structure investigations and articulate reasoning. Organisations that expect their decisions to be reviewed in a particular forum tend to write with that forum in mind.

Closing observations for fire and rescue leaders

These cases sit on the boundary between personal expression and professional obligation, and they show where services and review bodies have been drawing that boundary in practice. The record matters because it fixes the language in place. A tribunal bundle or an appellate judgment does not deal in impressions. It deals in the actual words, the setting they were used in, and the employer’s explanation for treating those words as a disciplinary issue. That is why the Howard County material is so frequently cited. The Fourth Circuit opinion prints the posts, prints the policy clauses, and records the decision to terminate. The Chicago decision does something similar. The Northern District of Illinois judgment in Inendino preserves the captions and explains how the employer linked them to professional standards. Those documents show the mechanics of a dismissal case as it will later be read by someone outside the organisation.

The UK and Canadian examples add a different point that is easy to miss when the headline focuses on the comment itself. A dismissal decision is judged against the employer’s own reasoning and its own process. In the Buckinghamshire case, the Employment Tribunal judgment accepted that the reason for dismissal was conduct, then tested the precision of the investigation and the clarity of the findings. In Toronto, the CanLII Connects arbitration summary records discharge, records the words that drove it, then records a substituted penalty after the arbitrator weighed seriousness against proportionality. Read together, they show how review bodies think. They look for a clean line from what was said, to what was found, to which policy was engaged, to why the chosen sanction follows.

Recent US cases around political violence show another thread. Employer statements often frame discipline in terms that are recognisable to the public, such as impartiality and professionalism, and they do so with an eye on community confidence rather than internal workplace harmony alone. The Toledo report quotes the chief using “impartiality, respect, and professionalism” as the standard. The Canyon Lake coverage quotes the chief describing an “obligation to act” when behaviour compromises confidence. That language is plain on purpose, and it reflects how services explain these decisions to residents who may never read a policy manual. The practical implication is straightforward. Fire services now operate in a setting where speech cases are handled as public accountability issues as much as employment disputes, and the quality of the written record often determines how long the decision holds.