Federal Court Allows Phoenix Firefighter’s Reverse Discrimination Claims to Proceed

Federal Court Allows Phoenix Firefighter’s Reverse Discrimination Claims to Proceed

A federal judge in Arizona has partially denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a Phoenix firefighter who alleges he was denied promotion because he is a white male. Chad Lancaster, a firefighter-paramedic, filed the suit last year in Maricopa County Superior Court naming the city and former Fire Chief Jason Rideout as defendants.

The suit was removed by the city to federal court because the complaint asserted federal civil-rights claims. Lancaster alleges that the City of Phoenix and Chief Rideout discriminated against him based on race and gender and retaliated against him after he challenged the department’s promotional practices. He brought claims under 42 U.S.C. §1981, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and a state-law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. 

Lancaster’s allegations center on two captain promotional processes conducted in 2021 and 2023. He claims that during the 2021 promotional process he scored highly on the written and tactical components of the examination—94% and 92% respectively—but received a much lower score on the oral interview portion. According to the complaint, this resulted in his placement at number 99 on the captain eligibility list. 

Lancaster alleges that the interview board was altered shortly before his interview and that his score was intentionally lowered to place “non-White, non-male” candidates ahead of him. 

He again competed in the 2023 captain promotional process, where he claims his written, tactical, and interview scores were manipulated and that his ranking on the promotional list changed multiple times after the list had already been certified. 

The complaint further alleges that Lancaster recorded a July 18, 2023 conversation with Chief Rideout in which the chief acknowledged that race and gender were factors used in the scoring system for promotions. According to the complaint, Chief Rideout stated that minority candidates and women received additional points and that final scoring incorporated written scores, tactical scores, oral scores, seniority, and race or gender factors. 

Lancaster also alleges that after raising concerns about the promotional process he experienced retaliation and a hostile work environment. Among other allegations, he claims:

• union officials refused to pursue grievances about his scoring;
• coworkers publicly disparaged him in meetings and before colleagues;
• he was denied certain training qualifications; and
• he was displaced from a position at Station 19 and denied transfer opportunities despite seniority. 

He filed a complaint with the Arizona Attorney General’s Office in February 2024 and later filed a charge with the EEOC. The EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter on April 30, 2025. 

The city defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that several claims were barred by statutes of limitation and that certain counts failed to state a claim. The court noted that different claims were subject to different limitation periods, including:

• a four-year limitation period for §1981 claims,
• a two-year period for Monell claims under §1983,
• Title VII administrative filing deadlines, and
• a one-year limitation period for the state intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. 

The defendants argued that allegations related to earlier promotional processes were untimely and should be stricken. The court rejected that argument in part, holding that earlier events could remain in the complaint as background evidence supporting timely discrimination claims. 

The court ultimately granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. Specifically, the court ruled:

• The §1981 race discrimination claim against the City of Phoenix may proceed. 
• The Monell claim against Chief Rideout was dismissed because Monell liability applies to municipalities, not individuals. 
• The intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was dismissed, because the complaint failed to plead “extreme and outrageous conduct” as required under state law that occurred within the applicable one-year statute of limitations; and because it failed to allege intent or reckless disregard. The court allowed the plaintiff an opportunity to attempt to amend that claim. 
• The court also dismissed the plaintiff’s request for punitive damages as pleaded. 
• Chief Rideout was dismissed as a defendant. 

The court allowed the plaintiff 14 days to file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies identified in the order. As a result of the ruling, Lancaster’s federal discrimination claims against the City of Phoenix remain pending in the case. Here are copies of the ruling as well as the original complaint/removal petition.