Ohio Fire Lieutenant Alleges Termination for Charlie Kirk Related Post Violated First Amendment

A lieutenant with Toledo Fire and Rescue has filed a federal civil rights suit alleging he was unlawfully terminated for an off-duty Facebook comment made from his personal account. Lieutenant Jeffery Schroeder filed suit today in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio naming the City of Toledo, the fire chief, the city’s safety director, and several command officers as defendants.

According to the complaint, Lt. Schroeder served 28 years with the Toledo Fire and Rescue Department and 35 years with the City of Toledo. He alleges his termination stemmed from a single Facebook comment he posted while off duty and on vacation in September 2025, following news reports about the shooting of political commentator Charlie Kirk. Quoting from the complaint:

• Defendants have purported to base Schroeder’s termination on a single Facebook comment he posted to his personal account during off-hours that criticized Charlie Kirk, a prominent and divisive political commentator and activist who was assassinated in September 2025.
• Schroeder’s comment, which he made before he learned of Kirk’s death from the shooting, expressed in whole that the shooting was “[t]otally preventable and avoidable if not for the policies and beliefs like Charlie Kirk and his uneducated hateful ilk,” and that Schroeder “[w]ish[ed] the guy was a better shot,” because “Kirk offers nothing but hate and division to society… and discourse would be better without him.”
• The statement for which Defendants have purported to terminate Schroeder communicated his opinion that the world would be better off without Kirk’s divisive and hateful influence on public discourse.
• This was fundamental political speech that is protected under the First Amendment as confirmed by clearly established precedent from the Sixth Circuit and Supreme Court of the United States, and which leaves no doubt that Defendants’ decision to terminate Schroeder’s employment constitutes an actionable violation of his First Amendment rights.

Schroeder alleges he posted the comment before learning that Kirk had died and that the post remained online for approximately 30 minutes before being deleted at the request of the fire chief, conveyed through the union president.

The following day, the complaint alleges that the comment was shared with a widely followed social media influencer, who contacted the department regarding its social media policy. A department battalion chief responded by email stating the comment was under investigation. That email was later posted publicly, along with Schroeder’s comment and identifying information, prompting followers of the influencer to contact the department directly.

The department later asserted it received approximately 1,000 complaints from members of the public. Despite that, the complaint alleges Schroeder continued to work multiple 24-hour shifts without incident before being placed on administrative leave on September 15, 2025.

Schroeder was subsequently charged with four violations of departmental rules and city social media policies. An administrative hearing was held on October 29, 2025, with Fire Chief Allison Armstrong serving as hearing officer. Battalion chiefs and other officers from the Bureau of Professional Standards presented the City’s case. Schroeder pleaded not guilty to all charges and was represented by union leadership and counsel.

In written hearing findings dated November 12, 2025, Chief Armstrong found Schroeder guilty of three of the four charges, including conduct detrimental to the good order and discipline of the department and violations of social media policies. The findings state that the post was “widely disseminated across the world,” was “interpreted as an endorsement of political violence,” and resulted in “widespread public outrage and condemnation.” The findings further state that the volume of calls and messages caused operational disruption, required increased security measures, and affected department morale.

The hearing decision imposed termination, citing the severity of the conduct and its impact on public trust. The City’s safety director subsequently sustained the termination, finalizing Schroeder’s removal from employment  .

In his federal lawsuit, Schroeder alleges that his Facebook post constituted protected political speech made in his personal capacity and that the disciplinary action amounted to retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. He also asserts a claim against the City under Monell, alleging the termination reflected municipal policy or custom, and a state-law claim for wrongful termination in violation of Ohio public policy.

The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and a jury trial. Here is a copy of the complaint.