Federal Court Rejects Motion to Dismiss Political Retaliation Suit Involving Firehouse Wearing of Trump Masks
A federal judge in Illinois has denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by an Evanston Fire Department captain who alleges he was suspended because of his political support for Donald Trump.
Curt Koopman, a Captain with the Evanston Fire Department, filed suit alleging violations of the First Amendment and the Illinois Local Governmental Employees Political Rights Act when he was disciplined for an incident that occurred on January 20, 2025. That incident involved Captain Koopman and his crew briefly wearing Donald Trump masks while watching the presidential inauguration on television.
Captain Koopman asserts that he made no political statements while wearing the mask and did not otherwise express political views. After a photograph of the firefighters wearing the masks was posted online, he was notified that he was being subjected to a disciplinary investigation and ordered to attend a disciplinary interrogation. During that interrogation, Captain Koopman was ordered to answer questions and specifically required to disclose whether he supported Donald Trump in the most recent presidential election. He alleged that he was compelled to reveal that he had voted for Trump.
Following the interrogation, Captain Koopman received a seven-shift suspension, resulting in lost wages. He filed suit in US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois naming the city and fire chief as defendants. The suit centered on allegations that the suspension was imposed to punish him for his political support of a presidential candidate who was unpopular with city officials, rather than for any on-duty misconduct.
The city moved for summary judgment. U.S. District Judge Joan B. Gottschall ruled that the captain plausibly alleged violations of the First Amendment and the Illinois Local Governmental Employees Political Rights Act, and that the fire chief was not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the case.
The defendants argued that the complaint failed to state a claim because wearing a political mask while on duty was not protected speech and because the discipline was based on workplace conduct, not political affiliation. The court rejected that framing, explaining that the gravamen of the complaint was not punishment for mask-wearing, but retaliation for political support.
In evaluating the motion, the court considered documents attached by the defendants, including the transcript of the disciplinary interrogation, photographs of the incident, the notice of investigation, and the disciplinary action form. The court concluded those materials were properly considered because they were referenced in the complaint and central to the claims.
The court found the retaliation theory plausible in part because the interrogation transcript showed that the plaintiff was required to disclose his political support and that his support for President Trump was expressly noted during questioning. The court observed that how an employee voted is “a sensitive and normally confidential matter,” and stated that it was reasonable to infer that the defendants viewed that information as relevant when imposing discipline.
Judge Gottschall also rejected the fire chief’s claim of qualified immunity. Citing longstanding Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit precedent, the court held that it has been clearly established for decades that public employees may not be disciplined for their political beliefs or affiliations unless political affiliation is an appropriate job requirement. The court noted that suspensions actually served, such as the seven-shift suspension alleged in this case, fall squarely within that prohibition.
Based on these conclusions, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, allowing the constitutional and state-law claims to proceed. Here is a copy of the complaint.
