CLEVELAND – A federal appellate court has sided with a retired Cleveland fire battalion chief who sued the city over allegations that officials retaliated against him for bringing to light a former chief’s training issues.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday dismissed the claim of Edward Eckart, a former assistant safety director in Cleveland, who had argued he was entitled to immunity from being sued for First Amendment retaliation.
The decision means the lawsuit, brought by Sean DeCrane, is likely to proceed to trial before U.S. District Judge Christopher Boyko, who also had ruled against Eckart’s claim.
“The Sixth Circuit’s opinion reinforces the right of public employees to speak publicly about matters of public concern like government corruption or incompetence,” said DeCrane’s attorney, Subodh Chandra.
An aide to Cleveland Law Director Barbara Langhenry referred calls to a city spokeswoman who did not immediately return a message.
DeCrane sued the city in 2016. He contended that he warned city officials in January 2013 that former fire division Chief Daryl McGinnis lacked the required continuing training and certification needed to hold his position or a job as a firefighter.
That was before Mayor Frank Jackson appointed McGinnis as fire chief, a move based on Eckart’s recommendation. At the time, DeCrane oversaw the fire training academy that tracked such records. After McGinnis resigned, DeCrane contends he was passed over for the chief’s job and other promotions.
The suit claimed the city violated DeCrane’s civil rights. DeCrane accused Eckart, with the help of others, of retaliating against him because the information about McGinnis became public and proved to embarrass the city.
DeCrane’s lawsuit said Eckart and the others mistakenly believed he had leaked the information to cleveland.com reporter Leila Atassi.
DeCrane claimed the retaliation included an unfounded internal investigation and misconduct charges, as well as an attempt to humiliate DeCrane by shutting down his retirement party because there wasn’t prior approval for it, Chandra said.
The attorney said the appeal focused on whether informing a reporter about a fire chief’s lack of required training was protected by the First Amendment, and whether Eckart was immune from being sued.
The appellate court said public officials still face liability for First Amendment retaliation even if they make a mistake about the identity of the person who provided the information.
“Five years after his suit was filed, DeCrane will now at long last have his day in court before a jury,” Chandra said.
©2021 Advance Local Media LLC. Visit cleveland.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
