The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a ruling regarding the termination of Michael Washington, the former Fire Chief of Cincinnati. The court found that Washington's procedural due process rights were violated when he was terminated without a pre-termination hearing. This decision affects public employees and clarifies the legal standards surrounding employment terminations in government positions.
Washington, who had been with the Cincinnati Fire Department since 1993, was promoted to Fire Chief in May 2021. His tenure was cut short in March 2023 when he was terminated by City Manager Sheryl Long without any opportunity for a hearing. Washington subsequently filed a lawsuit against Long and the City of Cincinnati, claiming violations of his federal and state procedural due process rights, as well as defamation under Ohio law. The case was filed under docket number 25-3692.
The dispute originated from the City of Cincinnati's interpretation of its Charter, which allows for the removal of the Fire Chief only for cause after a six-month probationary period. Washington argued that he had accrued rights to a pre-termination hearing after serving six months. The district court agreed, denying Long's claim of qualified immunity for the pre-termination process and allowing the case to proceed.
In its ruling, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. Judge Jane Branstetter Stranch, along with Judges Chad A. Readler and Rachel S. Bloomekatz, emphasized that Washington had a property interest in his continued employment as Fire Chief after the six-month period, which entitled him to due process protections. The court stated, "Long's failure to provide Washington with any pre-termination process before firing him on March 24, 2023, was a violation of clearly established law." This ruling reinforces the importance of procedural due process in employment matters involving public officials.
The court also addressed the issue of statutory immunity concerning Washington's defamation claim. The judges noted that Long and the City could not claim immunity if they acted with malice or bad faith. The court's ruling indicates that there are significant legal protections for public employees, particularly regarding their rights to due process in termination cases.
This ruling has broader implications for public employees and government employers. It establishes that public employees who have a property interest in their positions, such as those protected by a charter or statute, are entitled to a pre-termination hearing. This case sets a precedent that reinforces the necessity for government officials to adhere to established legal standards when terminating employees.
Looking ahead, it remains to be seen whether Long and the City will seek further appeals regarding this decision. The court's ruling indicates that Washington's claims will continue to be heard in the lower courts, potentially leading to a trial regarding both the procedural due process violations and the defamation claims. This case highlights the ongoing legal battles surrounding employment rights for public officials and the importance of maintaining due process in government employment practices.