One remark, a long paper trail – and why context decided everything
One firefighter, one offensive remark after George Floyd's murder, and a termination an Ohio court refused to overturn.
An Ohio appeals court has upheld the firing of a Columbus firefighter who, days after George Floyd was murdered, told colleagues over a dispatch call to stand on someone's neck and wait. The remark, made in a room that included an African American co-worker, capped a disciplinary record the court found more than justified termination.
The ruling, handed down May 28, 2026, by the Tenth Appellate District, is worth a few minutes for anyone who runs an HR function. It answers a question that comes up in disciplinary meetings all the time: can one comment end a career, and how much does the rest of an employee's history count?
Robin Garrison had been a firefighter for the City of Columbus since 1997. On May 31, 2020, after a call asking how long until law enforcement would arrive, he made the comment in the Fire Alarm Office. Elizabeth Finnegan, an African American colleague, testified she was shocked and appalled. Garrison apologized to the room afterward and agreed a written counseling form was appropriate.
That apology did not save him, and the comment was not his only problem. An earlier investigation found that Garrison made comments to a female firefighter, Jennifer Wilkinson, that the city's EEO investigator concluded were inappropriate and sexually harassing, and that he retaliated against her by trying to discredit her after she raised concerns. His record also included a suspension for dishonesty and an earlier one connected to exposing himself to a civilian while in uniform.
The city terminated him in July 2021, and the Civil Service Commission upheld it. Garrison appealed, arguing that a single remark shouldn't cost him his job, that a lieutenant had judged counseling sufficient, and that the city had let him keep working for roughly a year before acting.
The court was not persuaded. It found no legal authority for the claim that one comment can never support termination, and pointed out that the remark was never the sole reason. Garrison's prior violations, the court said, supported progressive discipline and reflected a lack of understanding or remorse. His insistence that the line was just a failed attempt at dark humor, the court noted, only confirmed that he still didn't understand why it was inappropriate.
There are clear takeaways for HR teams here. Context is doing real work: the court returned again and again to the timing of the remark and who was in the room, treating those as central rather than incidental. The year-long delay, which Garrison framed as proof the comment wasn't serious, did not hurt the city. The court accepted that overlapping investigations, COVID-19 delays, and union procedural protections explained it. The lesson is familiar but worth repeating: a slow process that is properly documented can hold up. And the decision shows how heavily a disciplinary record and a documented EEO investigation weigh when an employee challenges a firing.
One more thread runs through the case. Garrison argued the trial judge should have recused herself because she had filed her own discrimination complaint. The appeals court disagreed, saying there was nothing inherently disqualifying about a judge filing a personal complaint, and that questions about judicial conduct fall outside its authority to enforce.
The result: termination affirmed, both of Garrison's arguments rejected.
The case is Garrison v. Columbus, 2026-Ohio-1981, decided by the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth Appellate District, on appeal from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
