Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS—W.D. La.: Fire chief’s attempt to dismiss firefighter’s retaliation claims largely fails, (Jun 13, 2025)

By George Basharis, J.D.

Most of the firefighter’s constitutional claims were allowed to proceed despite challenges to the union leader’s protected speech allegations.

A federal district court in Louisiana has delivered a mixed ruling on a fire department’s motion to dismiss a wrongful termination lawsuit, allowing most of a firefighter’s constitutional claims to proceed while dismissing others. The court found that the firefighter’s phone calls to government commissioners about public fund expenditures constituted protected speech as a private citizen rather than official union duties, but ruled that allegations of retaliation based solely on union membership were too conclusory to survive dismissal (Gramm v. Fire District 9 DeSoto Parish, No. 24-1187 (W.D. La. Jun. 12, 2025)).

This case centers on a firefighter who served as captain and union secretary-treasurer for IAFF Local 5138 at Fire District 9 DeSoto Parish. The employee had worked for the department since September 2014 and was elected to the union leadership position in July 2017, advocating on various matters of public concern affecting district firefighters for over six years.

Use of public funds. The controversy began in September 2023 when the firefighter learned that an upcoming board of commissioners meeting would include approval of public funds for a new vehicle for the district fire chief. Local 5138 members met to formulate a response, deciding their union representative should contact board members to petition for appropriate use of district resources toward equipment improvements and fire station upgrades instead.

Concerns voiced. On September 18, 2023, while off duty, the firefighter called two board commissioners to voice concerns about the fire district’s use of public funds and to advocate for better working conditions and equipment. The following day, the district fire chief called the firefighter into his office and handed him a formal investigation notice for an "incident involving him on or around September 18, 2023.” The firefighter was immediately placed on administrative leave and subjected to what he alleged was a due process-deficient investigation.

Termination. In November 2023, the fire department and the district fire chief terminated the firefighter’s employment, providing an official notice of disciplinary action citing violations of district policies. The firefighter contended the notice explicitly acknowledged his termination for petitioning government officials in his union capacity while off-duty and speaking as a private citizen about matters of public concern.

Subsequently, the firefighter filed a four-count complaint under Section 1983, alleging violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech, freedom of association, and petition, plus a state-law claim for retaliation in violation of public policy protecting labor organization activities.

First Amendment retaliation. At the outset, the court explained that a plaintiff must demonstrate four elements for First Amendment retaliation claims: (1) adverse employment action; (2) speaking as a citizen on matters of public concern; (3) that the speech interests outweigh governmental efficiency interests; and (4) causation between the speech and the adverse action.

Protected speech. First, the court found the firefighter sufficiently alleged he engaged in protected speech when calling commissioners about the public fund distribution. The court emphasized that the firefighter’s communication was made outside of his firefighter duties and addressed issues that could qualify as matters of public concern, specifically the safety of firefighters and the community.

In response, the fire district argued the speech was unprotected because it was made in furtherance of official union duties rather than as a private citizen. However, the court distinguished between the firefighter’s employment duties and his union responsibilities, noting he acted on personal time when contacting commissioners about public money usage and the department's public service capacity.

The court rejected the fire department’s contention that speech must be made before a public audience to receive protection, noting that “speech on matters of public concern need not be made before a public audience.” The timing between the September phone call and November termination, combined with the disciplinary notice’s explicit reference to the commissioner contact, supported the causation element.

Freedom of association. While the speech and petition claims survived, the court granted dismissal of the freedom of association claim. The court determined that the firefighter’s allegations were insufficient to establish that union association was a substantial or motivating factor in the termination decision.

The court noted the firefighter had been a known union member since July 2017 without adverse consequences, and the disciplinary notice focused on his speech rather than union membership. The court found the allegations “replete with conclusory language” insufficient for pleading purposes, containing legal conclusions calling for speculation rather than factual allegations supporting association-based retaliation.

State-law claim. The court similarly dismissed the firefighter’s state-law claim, finding the allegations conclusory and lacking factual support. State law declares public policy against restricting labor and union activity. However, the court determined the disciplinary action primarily involved the firefighter’s speech rather than his union association.

The case is No. 24-1187.

Judge: Hicks, M., Jr.

Attorneys: Louis L. Robein, Jr. (Robein Urann Spencer Picard & Cangemi) for Jonathan Gramm. Richard E. King (Melchiode Marks King) for Fire District 9 DeSoto Parish.

Companies: Fire District 9 DeSoto Parish

Cases: IndividualRights Discharge Labor UnionsMembers PublicEmployees Retaliation StateLawClaims LouisianaNews