Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS—7th Cir.: Former Chicago firefighter cannot revive First Amendment claims involving racist Facebook posts, (Jul 17, 2026)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

Although the court disagreed with the lower court that the speech did not involve matters of public concern, the Pickering balancing test nonetheless weighed in favor of the city.

Affirming a district court’s grant of summary judgment against the First Amendment claims asserted by a former Chicago firefighter, the Seventh Circuit noted that it was “beyond reasonable debate” that the Chicago Fire Department has a strong interest in maintaining public confidence in its services, and the fact that the firefighter was posting racially offensive content on his public Facebook page while identifying himself prominently as a Chicago firefighter undermined that confidence. Further, his targeting of groups that his position required him to protect could have impeded the ability of the fire department to achieve its public safety mandate (Inendino v. Nance-Holt, No. 24-2908 (7th Cir. July 16, 2026)).

The plaintiff in this case worked as a firefighter and EMT with the Chicago Fire Department (CFD) from May 2005 until June 2021. He was assigned to a station located in a predominantly Black neighborhood.

Facebook page. Like many people, the firefighter had a Facebook page. His page was set up so that any member of the public could view his posts. He prominently identified himself as a CFD firefighter on the page.

Complaints, investigation. On October 29, 2019, the Chicago Office of Inspector General (OIG) received a complaint from a member of the public concerning a Facebook comment made by the firefighter in which he told individuals to “take your ass back over the border where ya belong … gotta go I have a real job.”

Two days later, OIG received another complaint from a different member of the public regarding another comment the firefighter posted. The complainant had posted a video taken by her daughter showing a Chicago Police Department lieutenant apparently assaulting her 16-year-old son. The firefighter commented on the video, stating he had to “go to work to pay for all your scumbag kids that you welfare fucks keep having.”

In response, OIG investigated the firefighter’s Facebook page and found his posts showed contempt for the communities he was expected to serve. OIG recommended the city terminate his employment and the city adopted that recommendation.

Lawsuit. Subsequently, the firefighter sued the city under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming the city had fired him in violation of the First Amendment and that the city’s policy of prohibiting posts that “can be deemed offensive” was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The district court granted the city’s motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the firefighter raised two issues: whether the Facebook posts in question touched on matters of public concern, and whether the First Amendment test established by Pickering favored the city.

Public concern. Necessarily starting with the issue of public concern, the Seventh Circuit identified four missteps by the district court in reaching its determination that the speech did not involve matters of public concern.

First, the district court failed to examine each speech incident separately. Second, it appeared that, in the district court’s view, the patently offensive nature of the posts cut against their ability to address matters of public concern. Third, the district court appeared to believe that an employee’s speech cannot relate to a matter of public concern if it expresses a “personal grievance.” Fourth, the district court did not adequately consider the forum of the posts. However, the court here noted that even under the correct standard, there may be room for debate as to whether the posts addressed matters of public concern.

Given their form, content, and context, the court found that there were substantial arguments to be made that the posts, while “hateful and feckless,” raised matters of public concern because they arose, at least in part, from a particular view of current newsworthy events and government policies.

Posts in question. Having reviewed all 13 of the posts in question, the court assumed for present purposes that all 13 addressed matters of public concern. The court pointed to just a few of the posts to illustrate its point.

One post involved the events surrounding the death of Breonna Taylor. The firefighter wrote, “Just another reason for the animals to go get some free shit.” Although the post was racist and offensive, the court found it could be read to express the firefighter’s view on the Black Lives Matter movement’s response to Taylor’s death. The court found the same could be said for the other posts highlighted in its opinion, again noting their racist and offensive nature, but which could be read as critiques of Black Lives Matter protests. So too was the case for the posts not explicitly mentioned in the court’s opinion. Having concluded that the posts addressed matters of public concern, the court moved on to the Pickering balancing test.

Sowing discord? To begin, the court started with the first Pickering factor, which was also one of the three reasons given for the firefighter’s termination—the need to maintain “harmony among coworkers.” Although the city argued that the CFD reasonably believed the posts would cause discord among the rank-and-file, the firefighter pointed out that none of his coworkers ever complained about his posts or the views they expressed.

In response, the city contended that it need not show actual workplace disruption, and that a threat of disruption is sufficient, so long as the threat is reasonable and not conclusory. However, the court noted that the problem with this argument was that the city had failed to proffer any evidence demonstrating a disruption or even a reasonable threat of disruption with regard to the posts.

Twenty months had passed between the firefighter’s final Facebook post and the city’s decision to terminate his employment. During that time, no coworker complained about the posts. This lengthy passage of time without incident undermined the reasonableness of the city’s concerns about potential workplace disruption, said the court, despite the fact that it proffered testimony that CFD employees “come from all different backgrounds.”

To be clear, continued the court, this was not to say that actual workplace complaints or disruption are necessary before a public employer can act. However, more is needed than a general observation about the make-up of the workforce. “For example, the public employer might offer the testimony of a seasoned supervisor to attest from personal experience about the detrimental impact that racist statements have on the ability of CFD firefighters to do their work,” explained the court. But here, the record lacked any meaningful evidence to substantiate the city’s concerns, and thus the first Pickering factor weighed in favor of the firefighter.

Time, place and manner. Although the first factor favored the firefighter, the rest weighed heavily against him. For example, with regard to the time, place and manner factor, the court noted that the firefighter did not direct his comments to a particular audience but instead uploaded his comments for all the world to see, a fact that cut against him. So too with regard to the “extremely derogatory and divisive content of the posts.”

Member of the public? The seventh Pickering factor—whether the speaker should be regarded as a member of the general public—also weighed against the firefighter. He went out of his way to identify himself as a CFD member on his Facebook page. Given this fact, it would be unreasonable to think that viewers would regard him simply as a member of the general public.

Impeding responsibilities. Similarly, the third factor—whether the speech impeded the employee’s ability to perform his responsibilities—again cut against the firefighter. “It is beyond reasonable debate that the CFD has a strong interest in maintaining public confidence in its services,” said the court.

Here, the firefighter served in a predominantly Black neighborhood. His job was to provide lifesaving care to all who sought it, observed the court. Thus, the city’s concern that the firefighter’s racist posts might reflect an unwillingness to treat all citizens equally was reasonable, said the court.

On balance, the court concluded that the city’s interest in ensuring that the CFD succeeds in performing its public safety mission substantially outweighed the firefighter’s interest in posting the contested memes and comments on Facebook. Accordingly, the grant of summary judgment to the city was affirmed.

The case is No. 24-2908.

Judge: Lee, J.

Attorneys: Julie O. Herrera (Law Office of Julie O. Herrera) for Sam Inendino. Jane Chapman, City of Chicago Law Department, for Annette Nance-Holt, City of Chicago, and Brian Casey.

MainStory: TopStory IndividualRights Discharge PublicEmployees IllinoisNews IndianaNews WisconsinNews GCNNews