South Carolina Assistant Chief Alleges Wrongful Termination and Retaliation

An assistant chief who retired last year, is suing his former department and two chief officers claiming he was forced to resign after reporting misconduct. Assistant Chief Brian Christmas filed suit earlier this year naming the City of Sumter, the fire chief and an assistant chief as defendants.

According to the complaint, Chief Christmas claims he became aware of certain improprieties and ethical violations, and felt that if he did not speak up he could be “implicated in the actions for failure to act.” He initially contacted the South Carolina State Ethics Commission, then a Sumter County Councilman, and eventually South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED).

The result, according to the complaint, was animosity from the fire department leadership and a visit with the city officials:

• On October 18, 2023, the City Manager, Deron McCormick, told Plaintiff to meet with the Organizational Improvement Director, Mark Partin. Plaintiff told Partin everything that he had previously reported.
• Partin’s response was to ask Plaintiff what his exit plan was. Plaintiff stated that he did not want to leave his job.
• McCormick then joined the meeting and pressured Plaintiff to retire. He told Plaintiff that he needed to give a retirement date by the following week. McCormick also stated: 1) that if [the Fire Chief] finds out about what he did (going to SLED), it won’t be good; 2) that if [the Fire Chief] comes after him, they would put him on terminal leave until his retirement date; and 3) “[Plaintiff] had sinned, and like it said in Hebrews, [Plaintiff] needed to be punished” because “[Plaintiff] went outside the family.”
• As a result of this meeting, Plaintiff submitted his retirement on October 24, 2023, effective November 7, 2023.
• The City turned off Plaintiff’s email access and sent him home on October 24, 2023.

The complaint alleges wrongful termination, whistleblower retaliation, civil conspiracy, and defamation. The city filed an answer that includes the following:

• Defendants affirmatively allege that [Fire Chief] Ford and [Assistant Chief] Dollard recall Plaintiff telling each of them separately around this time that Plaintiff intended to retire from City employment.
• [Assistant Chief] Dollard specifically recalls Plaintiff telling him that he planned to retire due to frustrations he felt that [Fire Chief] Ford did not plan to retire so that Plaintiff could be chief of the Sumter Fire Department, or words to that effect.
• Defendants affirmatively allege that no violations of law or ethics rules took place, that Plaintiff’s pleadings reflect that he contacted SLED and the South Carolina Ethics Commission about his concerns and neither agency took action based on his reports, and that statements Plaintiff made to Dollard indicate that Plaintiff did not take any action based on concerns or beliefs about alleged legal or ethical violations but because of his frustration that Ford would not retire so that he could become chief of the Sumter Fire Department.
• Defendants affirmatively allege that the City Manager did join the meeting in question but did not in any way pressure Plaintiff to retire or tell him that he had to set a retirement date; rather, the City manager asked Plaintiff what he believed was the way forward. Defendants further affirmatively allege that Partin described what he saw as possible actions Plaintiff could take, including continuing to work in the Sumter Fire Department, resigning, retiring, or going to work somewhere else. Defendants further affirmatively allege that the only mention of “terminal leave” was informing Plaintiff that if he wanted to take leave from employment to find another job that the City might be able to offer that. Defendants further affirmatively allege that Plaintiff asked to take leave to think about his decision and he was told that would be fine and that he and Partin could meet again to discuss on Monday. Defendants deny that any statements were made concerning Plaintiff having sinned or having gone against the family and needing to be punished or referencing Hebrews, which – based upon their review of that book of the Bible following Plaintiff’s allegations – Defendants do not believe contains any of the language Plaintiff mentions in this allegation.
• Defendants affirmatively allege that Plaintiff asked to delay the meeting that was scheduled for Monday, October 23, 2023, until the next day, but, upon information and belief, Plaintiff had actually submitted his retirement paperwork on the previous Friday without informing the City that he planned to do so.
• Plaintiff filed a grievance, a grievance hearing was held, and that the City of Sumter grievance committee found unanimously that Plaintiff had voluntarily retired from employment with the City and that his retirement should remain in place.

Here are copies of both the complaint and the answer: