Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS—M.D.N.C.: Former fire captain, fired for offensive social media posts, cannot advance claims, (Aug 12, 2026)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

His position as captain increased the potential disruption to the maintenance of discipline at the fire department.

Granting the City of Greensboro’s motion for summary judgment against the First Amendment retaliation and wrongful termination claims asserted by a Greensboro Fire Department (GFD) captain, a federal district court in North Carolina determined, among other things, that the city had reasonably perceived the captain’s continued posting after several warnings as insubordinate. Multiple firefighters with supervisory roles in the GFD provided declarations agreeing that such conduct could not be tolerated as it risks significant disruption to GFD operations and undermines the public trust. Further, the facts contradicted the captain’s claims of disparate treatment because, unlike other firefighters who were disciplined for offensive posts and stopped posting, his social media activity intensified after receiving coaching sessions (Jones v. The City of Greensboro, No. 1:24CV450 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 10, 2026)).

The fire captain who brought this action served with the GFD for more than 16 years. Captains represent the “middle management” of the GFD, and are responsible for leading, supervising, and discipling their crews, managing their fire stations, and fostering public relations and community engagement.

Facebook posts. In 2021, the captain began a series of posts on his Facebook page that led to corrective actions by leadership and ultimately resulted in his termination. The problems began after he posted a photo of hoarding conditions at a private residence after responding to a structure fire on the property. He received a coaching session and removed the post.

Later, the captain reposted a video of Guilford County’s sheriff, who is Black, dancing at a homecoming parade, referring to the sheriff as a “clown.” City personnel became aware of this post following a citizen’s report. The captain received counseling was told his post could be perceived as racist. When the captain made a post commenting on the killing of Tyre Nichols by Memphis police, the GFD chief met with him, explaining that his posts were drawing attention and to stop making posts that could be viewed as offensive.

Over the next several months, the captain continued posting controversial material, including a photo of a keychain reading, “IF I’VE EVER OFFENDED YOU, I’M SORRY…THAT YOU’RE A LITTLE BITCH.” Subsequent posts made references to “straight pride,” disparaging comments about former U.S. Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine, and references to blackface, all of which were presented in a mocking and derogatory manner.

Termination. As the captain continued posting, members of the GFD knew of and were discussing the posts. The decision was made to terminate the captain’s employment, and his termination letter noted that his “posts ha[d] become increasingly offensive and discriminatory” and his conduct was found “to be egregious to the point that it erode[d] public trust and negatively impact[ed] or interfere[d] with the day to day operations of the Fire Department.”

Following his termination, the captain filed this lawsuit, asserting claims for First Amendment retaliation and wrongful termination. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

Wrongful termination. First addressing the claim for wrongful termination, the city argued that governmental immunity barred this claim. Neither the captain’s response in opposition nor his own motion for summary judgment addressed the wrongful termination claim. Further, he produced no evidence that the city had waived governmental immunity. Thus, the court found no dispute existed as to whether governmental immunity barred the captain’s wrongful termination claim against the city and granted the city’s motion for summary judgment on this claim.

First Amendment retaliation. Turning to the captain’s First Amendment retaliation claim, the city argued that the captain’s posts created potential and actual disruption both within the GFD and between the GFD and the community. The city also asserted that the captain’s conduct amounted to insubordination, damaging his ability to enforce GFD policies and threatening the paramilitary hierarchy of the GFD.

In response, the captain argued that the city failed to consider his First Amendment rights when it terminated his employment. He further asserted that his commentary on matters of public concern drew on the particular knowledge he possessed as a firefighter. In addition, he contended that the city falsely assumed his insubordination to “craft a narrative” of defiance.

Grutzmacher. According to the city, the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Grutzmacher v. Howard County, 851 F.3d 332 (4th Cir. 2017), guides this case. There, a county fire department fired a battalion chief after he made an offensive Facebook post. The Fourth Circuit concluded that at least some of the battalion chief’s activity implicated matters of public concern. However, it held that the fire department’s interest outweighed that of the battalion chief, and affirmed summary judgment in favor of the fire department. Specifically, the court noted that his speech resulted in numerous difficult conversations between at least one lower-level employee and another battalion chief. The court also considered the battalion chief’s managerial role, his perceived defiance and insubordination, and the lack of specialized knowledge or legitimate public safety concern associated with his posts.

Here, like the fire department in Grutzmacher, the city reasonably believed the captain’s continued posting to be insubordinate. The captain received three coaching sessions in which supervisors expressed their disapproval of his posts. His disregard of the coaching he received “was a known fact among parts of the GFD.” Multiple firefighters with supervisory roles in the GFD provided declarations agreeing that the captain’s conduct “cannot be tolerated” because it “risks significant disruption to the [GFD’s] effective operations and undermines leadership, discipline, and public trust.”

In response, the captain asserted that he only received “ambiguous” counseling sessions and contrasted his termination with other GFD employees who received less harsh disciplinary measures for their own posts.

Reasonable belief. Addressing the captain’s arguments, the court noted that his posts may well represent a form of argumentative, albeit inflammatory, social commentary based on his legitimately held beliefs. However, the city need only demonstrate that it reasonably believed the captain’s speech to be insubordinate and disruptive, not that he intended his speech as such.

Disparate treatment? As to the captain’s claims of disparate treatment, the court observed that he could not identify any case indicating that comparators or disparate treatment were relevant to the Pickering balancing test.

Even if comparators were relevant, continued the court, the undisputed facts contradicted the captain’s claims of disparate treatment because, unlike other firefighters who received some level of discipline for potentially offensive posts, the captain’s posting activity actually intensified following his coaching sessions.

Evidence of disruption. In addition, the city’s evidence of the reasonable apprehension of disruption extended beyond its perception of the captain’s conduct as insubordinate. His activity created some disruption within the GFD itself, with one battalion chief asserting that his posts were creating difficult conversations among GFD staff.

Further, the captain’s leadership position exacerbated the potential disruption caused by his posts, explained the court. While he attempted to distinguish Grutzmacher by arguing he occupied a lower position than battalion chief, the court noted that the more relevant comparison was that the battalion chief position described in Grutzmacher appeared roughly equivalent to that of captain at the GFD.

The city also produced evidence that the captain’s conduct threatened the GFD’s relationship with the community. Indeed, one member of the community filed a complaint after the captain reposted video of the sheriff dancing. Also, 13 community members voiced their support for his termination at a city council meeting. The mere fact that the captain’s termination “generated such a reaction corroborates the City’s reasonable apprehension over the deleterious effects of his posts,” said the court.

Balancing of interests. With regard to the interest in the captain’s commentary on matters of public concern, the court found that his interest did not outweigh the significant governmental interests outlined above. Although his firefighting experience may have given him some particular insight into the dangers of hoarding or civil unrest, his actual posts on those matters failed to demonstrate any specialized knowledge that would heighten the interest of his speech, explained the court. In fact, continued the court, the post most directly grounded in the captain’s specialized knowledge—the one concerning hoarding—also violated GFD policy by exposing the interior of a private residence.

Ultimately, the GFD demonstrated that it reasonably believed that its interest in efficiency and preventing disruption outweighed whatever public interest was present in the captain’s social media activity, said the court. Accordingly, the city’s motion for summary judgment against the captain’s First Amendment retaliation claims was granted.

The case is No. 1:24CV450.

Judge: Schroeder, T.

Attorneys: Jonathan G. Kreider (Kreider Law) for Dustin Robert Jones. Sean Placey (Fox Rothschild) for The City of Greensboro.

Companies: The City of Greensboro

Cases: IndividualRights CoverageLiability Discharge PublicEmployees Retaliation NorthCarolinaNews