Skipping the process was only the start - what she said next became its own claim
A Cincinnati city manager fired her fire chief with no hearing - after her own lawyers said he needed one. Now his lawsuit moves forward.
The former chief spent nearly three decades with the Cincinnati Fire Department before taking the top job in May 2021. Less than two years later, on March 24, 2023, the city manager called him to City Hall and terminated him on the spot. Two human resources representatives sat in. He got no pretermination hearing.
That missing hearing anchors the case. On August 13, 2026, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court, holding that the city manager could not claim immunity on either the due process or the defamation claim.
Cincinnati's charter let the fire chief be removed at will for six months, then only "for cause." He had passed that mark by late 2021. Under long-standing Supreme Court precedent, an employee who can be fired only for cause is owed notice and a chance to respond first. Skipping that, the court said, broke clearly established law.
The city pointed to a memo the chief signed at his promotion. It called the job "unclassified" and said he could be dismissed "without cause at any time." That, the city argued, waived his rights. The court disagreed. Waiving constitutional protections takes "clear and unmistakable language," it said, and the memo never mentioned the charter or due process.
One fact stood out. The city manager testified that she checked with the city's legal department, and that they told her he "would need a hearing." Asked why she fired him first, she answered, "[b]ecause that was my choice to not." A jury could find she knew she was violating his rights, the court said.
The defamation claim, still unproven, grows out of what she said next. She told the mayor, city council, and local reporters that the chief was fired for cause, and a memo branded him "an ineffective leader who is unwilling to take ownership for his decisions." He says the record shows some of those statements were false. The court found enough of a dispute to send the falsity and malice questions to a jury. One judge dissented on the due process point, citing the conflict between the two governing documents.
For HR leaders, the read is plain. Onboarding paperwork seldom wipes out due process rights. Advice from counsel, once given, is hard to unsay. And the story an employer tells about a firing can become its own lawsuit.
