Others who posted about ICE got coaching - he got terminated
An Indiana firefighter is suing the City of Evansville after being fired over off-duty social media comments about immigration.
The federal complaint, filed on November 5, 2026, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, names the City of Evansville as the sole defendant. The former lieutenant brings seven counts spanning First Amendment retaliation, disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, failure to accommodate, and violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act.
The worker joined the Evansville Fire Department in July 2016 and was promoted to lieutenant in June 2020. He held that rank until the city terminated him on May 26, 2026.
The post that started it
On February 20, 2026, while off duty, the worker used his personal social media account to comment on a local news story about a judge ordering ICE to grant a bond hearing or release a detained man. According to the filing, his comments stated: "Fuck no illegals don't have rights only citizens grab and hold them for removal" and "They need to check the Catholic diocese in Evansville they listed themselves as a sanctuary for illegals go check there we don't have sanctuary here."
The complaint alleges the comments were made as a private citizen in a public discussion - not on city equipment and not claiming to speak for the department.
The city also pointed to an earlier June 2024 social media incident, for which the worker had already received a written reprimand, and reports about a January 2026 workplace discussion involving ICE. The complaint acknowledges his disciplinary history was not unblemished.
Discipline, then diagnosis
On March 6, 2026, the fire chief handed the worker the February post, reports about the January incident, and written discipline: a five-day unpaid suspension plus a recommendation that the city's merit commission terminate his employment. The complaint alleges the worker offered to accept a voluntary demotion and the suspension instead of a termination hearing. The chief declined.
That timeline matters. The termination recommendation came before the worker had been diagnosed with PTSD.
Nine days later, on March 15, the worker entered the IAFF Center of Excellence for Behavioral Health Treatment and Recovery. He completed residential treatment on April 22, 2026, and during that program received a PTSD diagnosis. According to the complaint, his symptoms - disrupted sleep, impaired concentration and memory, heightened stress responses, and difficulty regulating emotions - predated the social media post but went undiagnosed until residential treatment.
The city's human resources department acknowledged his medical leave, requested FMLA paperwork, and received completed certification from the treatment facility. A treating physician cleared the worker for unrestricted duty effective May 6, 2026.
The hearing
The merit commission hearing took place on May 26, 2026. The worker, represented by counsel, testified about his PTSD diagnosis, his residential treatment, and his continuing care plan. He described the social media post as a lapse during a mental health crisis and said it did not reflect his willingness or ability to serve all community members, according to the complaint.
He told the commission he had stopped using social media, completed four cultural-competency classes totaling nine hours, and was in ongoing therapy and peer support. He accepted the five-day suspension and asked for a two-year period of continued employment to demonstrate his rehabilitation. The complaint frames this as a request for reasonable accommodation under the ADA - essentially, let him keep working under structured conditions including ongoing treatment, social media restrictions, and compliance monitoring rather than firing him outright.
The commission voted four to one to terminate his employment that day.
The comparators
Here is where the complaint sharpens. The city did not uniformly fire employees for offensive or controversial speech, the filing alleges. Two other firefighters received only coaching - not termination - for anti-ICE expression, including "Fuck ICE" posters, between 2024 and the proceedings against the worker. Their expression concerned the same public controversy from a different viewpoint, the complaint states.
At the hearing itself, the commission president asked the fire chief about one of those firefighters' social media violations and recalled that the individual had received coaching rather than a reprimand. The chief acknowledged the name and incident were familiar but did not provide the disciplinary record, according to the complaint.
The complaint also points to an incident in late 2019 or early 2020, when another department lieutenant was disciplined for directing a racial slur at a Black firefighter. That individual's discipline was a five-day unpaid suspension and one year of zero-tolerance probation - not discharge. He retained his employment and was assigned diversity-related liaison duties. One commissioner who participated in that earlier disciplinary decision voted to fire the worker, the complaint alleges.
What the worker wants
Across the seven counts, the worker is chasing reinstatement or front pay, back pay and lost benefits, compensatory damages for emotional distress on the constitutional and discrimination claims, statutory damages on the FMLA claims, correction of his employment records, and attorney fees.
The core argument ties it all together: the city fired a firefighter with a diagnosed mental health condition who had completed treatment and was medically cleared to work, while keeping other employees on after comparable - and in one case, arguably worse - conduct. For HR professionals, the case puts a spotlight on the gap between having social media and conduct policies and enforcing them consistently, especially when disability accommodation requests enter the disciplinary process.
None of the allegations in this complaint have been tested, and no court has made any findings or rulings on the claims.
