Background
Michael Washington worked for the Cincinnati Fire Department beginning in 1993 and became Fire Chief in May 2021. Cincinnati’s City Charter provides that, after serving six months, the Fire Chief may be removed only for cause and may demand written charges and a hearing before the city manager. When Washington accepted the position, however, he signed a memorandum describing the Fire Chief as an unclassified position whose holder served at the appointing authority’s pleasure and could be dismissed without cause at any time.
In March 2023, City Manager Sheryl Long terminated Washington immediately, without a pretermination hearing, and gave him a letter listing five grounds for removal. Long also circulated the reasons to city officials and the media. Washington sued Long and the City for federal and state procedural-due-process violations and defamation. The district court denied Long qualified immunity on the pre-deprivation due-process claim and statutory immunity on the defamation claim, prompting this interlocutory appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity. The majority held that the Charter’s unambiguous for-cause protection gave Washington a property interest in continued employment after his six-month probationary period. Clearly established precedent therefore required notice of the charges, an explanation of the employer’s evidence, and an opportunity for Washington to respond before termination. Because defendants conceded for purposes of the appeal that Washington had not actually waived his rights, the court considered the appointment memorandum only in assessing what a reasonable official would have understood. It concluded that the memorandum did not clearly and unmistakably waive Washington’s procedural-due-process rights.
The court also affirmed the denial of Ohio statutory immunity on the defamation claim. Viewing the record in Washington’s favor, a reasonable jury could find that Long knowingly made false or overstated statements about his leadership and his handling of a workplace-climate assessment, and thus acted with malice or bad faith. The jury also could consider evidence that Long knowingly disregarded Washington’s due-process rights as circumstantial evidence of her state of mind. Judge Readler concurred as to statutory immunity but dissented from the qualified-immunity ruling, reasoning that the conflict between the Charter and the signed memorandum prevented Washington’s asserted right from being clearly established.
Key Takeaways
- A municipal charter’s for-cause removal protection can create a constitutionally protected property interest in continued public employment.
- A public employee with for-cause protection ordinarily must receive notice, an explanation of the evidence, and an opportunity to respond before termination.
- Ambiguous employment language does not constitute the clear and unmistakable waiver required to relinquish procedural-due-process rights.
- Evidence that an official knowingly violated constitutional rights may support a finding of malice or bad faith sufficient to defeat Ohio statutory immunity on a related defamation claim.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that public employers cannot rely on a generic description of a position as “unclassified” or at will when a governing charter expressly supplies for-cause protection. Officials must examine all controlling sources of employment rights and provide constitutionally adequate pretermination process unless those rights have been clearly waived.
The ruling does not finally resolve Washington’s claims or establish Long’s liability. It permits the pre-deprivation due-process and defamation claims to proceed after the court affirmed the challenged immunity denials and remanded for further proceedings.