North Carolina Fire Chief’s Retaliation and Defamation Claims Survive Motion to Dismiss

A federal court in North Carolina has denied motions to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a former part-time fire chief who alleges he was terminated in retaliation for protected speech and subjected to defamatory statements about his conduct. Chief William Lanham filed suit in Franklin County Superior Court naming the Town of Louisburg, its mayor and town administrator.

The town removed the suit to the US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina because Chief Lanham alleged a federal question related to First Amendment retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, besides state law claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The facts were explained in the decision as follows:

• Plaintiff served as the part-time Fire Chief for the Louisburg Fire Department from 2013 until his termination in November 2024.
• During the time period relevant to plaintiffs claims, defendant Christopher Neal was the Mayor of Louisburg and defendant Sean Medlin was the Town Administrator.
• Plaintiff alleges that, after learning that firefighters were not receiving proper wages, he advocated to Medlin for fair compensation and correct vacation accrual rates for firefighters.
• Plaintiff alleges that thereafter Medlin began to spread defamatory statements about plaintiff—that plaintiff uses people and abuses women for personal gain — in response to plaintiff’s advocacy for firefighters. Plaintiff reported Medlin’s comments to the Town’s human resources department.
• In September 2024, a mildly suggestive (“PG-13”) photograph circulated on Facebook which depicted a woman dressed in firefighting gear and posing in the Town’s fire station. Plaintiff was not present when the photograph was taken.
• Plaintiff investigated the incident and contacted the police to have the woman trespassed.
• The woman later returned to the fire station and plaintiff confronted her, telling her she would be arrested for trespassing if she came back.
• The woman left without incident. Plaintiff reported the incident and his follow-up to Medlin.
• On September 12, 2024, a volunteer firefighter died after responding to two emergency calls. Plaintiff criticized the Town’s lack of response after the Town did not offer a public statement about the death or counseling services to other firefighters.
• Plaintiff voiced these criticisms during a public council meeting in October 2024, and plaintiff alleges that his statements angered and embarrassed Medlin and Neal. Plaintiff alleges that the part-time Fire Chief position was dissolved on November 12, 2024, following a closed session meeting of the Town Council.
• The Town had decided to hire a full-time Chief, and plaintiff was officially terminated on November 13th.
• The termination letter, signed by Neal, was sent to the address of plaintiff’s estranged wife, despite defendants’ knowledge that plaintiff and his wife were going through a divorce and no longer living together.
• In November 2024, the local paper ran stories about the fire department that plaintiff contends were defamatory and published at the direction of defendant Neal.
• The articles specifically referenced the woman who had posed in firefighting gear and wrongly suggested that plaintiff was somehow involved with the pictures.
• Neal is quoted in the articles which described the Facebook photo as the final straw, resulting in a change to the Fire Department’s leadership.
• Newspaper articles also referenced plaintiff’s alleged lack of availability, quoting Neal as saying that plaintiff’s work with the State Fire Marshal’s Office had created scheduling conflicts.
• Plaintiff alleges that defendant Neal was trying to shift blame and manufacture justification for plaintiff’s termination while damaging plaintiff’s reputation.
•  Plaintiff alleges that the delay between the firehouse pictures and Neal’s statements demonstrate that the basis proffered for plaintiff’s termination was pretextual, and that plaintiff was fired in retaliation for his public statements about Neal and Medlin’s lack of respect for a fellow firefighter.
• Plaintiff further alleges that he was terminated in retaliation for advocating for better pay and benefits for firefighters.

The mayor and town administrator sought dismissal of the First Amendment retaliation claim, arguing they were entitled to qualified immunity. The court declined to dismiss the claim at this stage, concluding that Lanham had plausibly alleged that he engaged in protected speech on matters of public concern and that his termination could constitute an adverse action linked to that speech. 

The court noted that it is well established that “a public employee [cannot] be fired solely for making protected statements.”  Because the record had not yet been developed through discovery, the court determined that resolving the qualified immunity issue would be premature. 

The defendants also argued that they were protected from the defamation claim by public official immunity under North Carolina law. The court concluded that Lanham’s allegations—that the officials caused known false statements to be published with the intent to injure his reputation—were sufficient at the pleading stage to allow the claim to proceed. 

The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint and deferred consideration of the qualified immunity and public official immunity defenses until a later stage of the case after the record has been more fully developed. 

Here is a copy of the decision: