In Inendino v. Nance-Holt, et al., a firefighter/EMT was terminated and placed on the no rehire list after making racially offensive comments on Facebook, violating the Chicago Fire Department (CFD) policies. The firefighter sued, claiming his First Amendment rights were violated. The court ruled against him, finding his comments were personal grievances that harmed public trust, outweighing his free speech claims.
An investigation revealed the firefighter made offensive and racially charged comments on his public Facebook page, which he linked to his role by displaying his job title and a photo of himself in uniform. The CFD requires employees to follow conduct rules on and off duty, including being banned from posting offensive or harassing social media posts. The firefighter’s posts, which included derogatory remarks about minorities and support for violence, led to public complaints and a recommendation for his dismissal by the Office of Inspector General. The firefighter was subsequently terminated.
The firefighter filed a lawsuit, arguing that his termination violated his First Amendment right to free speech. In reviewing the firefighter’s claim, the court first determined whether the firefighter’s statements qualified as citizen speech on public issues, which carries constitutional safeguards, or speech tied to personal grievances, which does not. Although the firefighter identified his job title and included a photo in his CFD uniform on his publicly accessible Facebook page, the court found his speech primarily reflected personal grievances rather than matters of public concern and undermined the trust required for his role. The court then analyzed whether the employee’s interest in making the comments outweighed the CFD’s interest in “promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of CFD, concluding that the department’s interest in maintaining public trust—i.e., ensuring the citizens of the predominantly Black neighborhood where the firefighter worked could know they would receive the appropriate level of care from the EMT—and preventing disruption outweighed the firefighter’s free speech rights.
This case shows that while public employees have free speech rights on social media, those rights are subject to limitations. This case reinforces the distinction between personal speech and official conduct, offering guidance on how digital communication by public employees can be evaluated under the First Amendment.
Contact Pam Simaga, Jeff Goelitz, or any attorney in our Labor/Personnel practice group for questions about this case’s impact on your employees’ free speech rights.
Source: Inendino v. Nance-Holt, — F.4th — WL 4433622 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 7, 2024)
