The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by the former fire chief of Wilmer, Texas, who claimed he was wrongfully terminated after testifying under subpoena in a criminal proceeding involving one of his subordinates.
Chief Mark Hamilton was terminated in 2022 after appearing in uniform and on duty to testify at a probation revocation hearing for firefighter Craig Lawrence. Lawrence had been criminally charged with placing a hidden camera in the bathroom of a Wilmer fire station. Chief Hamilton received a subpoena from the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office to appear at the hearing and complied without informing the City Administrator, Human Resources, or the City Attorney.
According to the decision, Chief Hamilton claims he believed the subpoena was to testify at a change of counsel hearing, something he did not believe he needed to inform city officials about.
At the hearing, Chief Hamilton testified for a few minutes about Lawrence’s employment history, his knowledge of the misconduct allegations, and Lawrence’s character. He wore his fire department uniform, drove a city vehicle to court, and did not take leave. Chief Hamilton acknowledged in his complaint that he testified as the Fire Chief, not as a private citizen.
Shortly after the hearing, Lawrence submitted his resignation, which Chief Hamilton accepted and forwarded to Human Resources. Chief Hamilton claims he attempted to inform the City Administrator, Rona Stringfellow, of the situation but was unable to speak with her until the following day. At that meeting, he was placed on administrative leave. He was formally terminated several weeks later.
Chief Hamilton filed suit against the City of Wilmer and Stringfellow under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging he was fired in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights. He argued that his subpoenaed testimony constituted protected speech and that his termination violated the Constitution.
The Fifth Circuit disagreed. The court held that Chief Hamilton failed to state a viable First Amendment retaliation claim because he was not speaking as a private citizen, but rather pursuant to his official duties. The court emphasized that he attended court in uniform, during work hours, and testified about matters directly related to his position. These facts supported the conclusion that Chief Hamilton was acting within his professional role.
Even if his testimony had been protected speech, the court held that the City had a legitimate justification for treating him differently than a private citizen. Chief Hamilton used city resources to appear in court, did not notify the City Administrator or legal counsel, and gave testimony that could be perceived as the Fire Department publicly supporting an employee who had secretly recorded others in a fire station bathroom. The court found this sufficient to justify disciplinary action under established precedent. Here is a copy of the decision:
