Ohio Fire Chief Sues Township Trustees Over Suspension and Alleged Retaliation

An Ohio fire chief has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging he was unlawfully suspended and targeted for retaliation after disclosing that township trustees revoked a firefighter’s training opportunity because of prior workers’ compensation claims.

The lawsuit was filed December 12, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio by Fire Chief Austin Miller, of the Shawnee Township Fire Department. The defendants are Shawnee Township and its three trustees—Ted Ciminillo, Clark Spieles, and Joe Recker—each sued in both their individual and official capacities. The complaint asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of due process, as well as a state-law public policy claim grounded in Ohio workers’ compensation statutes.

According to the complaint, Chief Miller was appointed Fire Chief pursuant to Ohio Revised Code § 737.22 and by statute could only be removed in accordance with specific statutory procedures that afford him a right to due process. He alleges that prior to the events giving rise to the lawsuit, he had no disciplinary history with the township.

The dispute goes back to February 2025, when a Shawnee firefighter submitted a request to attend a refinery firefighting course. The training was reportedly paid for by a local refinery, and Chief Miller approved the request, citing its relevance to hazards within the department’s response area. The firefighter had previously filed workers’ compensation claims for on-duty wrist and knee injuries.

On March 14, 2025, Chief Miller alleges he was informed by Trustee Ciminillo that the trustees had decided to revoke the firefighter’s permission to attend the training. When Chief Miller asked why the approval was being withdrawn—despite no cost to the township—he was told it was because the firefighter had previously filed workers’ compensation claims.

Chief Miller claims that he was directed to notify the firefighter of the revocation. He alleges that he truthfully informed the firefighter that the decision was based on the prior workers’ compensation filings. The following day, the trustees allegedly learned that Chief Miller had disclosed the true rationale.

Chief Miller claims Trustee Ciminillo prepared a written reprimand accusing him of failing to obtain verbal approval for the use of a township vehicle. Chief Miller refused to sign the reprimand. Shortly thereafter, the firefighter emailed township officials stating that Chief Miller had informed him of the true reason for the training denial. The firefighter later filed a grievance alleging retaliation and discrimination based on his workers’ compensation history.

The complaint alleges that trustees expressed displeasure with Chief Miller for disclosing what he characterized as their unlawful conduct. An investigatory file prepared in connection with Chief Miller’s potential removal allegedly included a note confirming that Chief Miller had informed the firefighter of the trustees’ stated rationale for revoking the training approval.

In the weeks that followed, Chief Miller alleges he was issued directives during a township meeting concerning vehicle lettering and a written memo prohibiting firefighters from playing pickleball during business hours. He contends that one of the directives was already being addressed and that the other had previously been communicated informally.

On May 1, 2025, Chief Miller alleges he was asked to explain why he had not developed a plan to save $5 million in the department’s budget—an amount roughly equal to the department’s entire operating budget—within a period of less than two months.

On May 30, 2025, Chief Miller was served with a notice of suspension from his position as Fire Chief. The complaint alleges the notice lacked signatures, was not approved by a vote of the township trustees at a public meeting, and did not include any charges. Miller claims he was immediately required to turn over his township vehicle, was barred from retrieving personal property, and was escorted out of the building.

The complaint further alleges that no statutory removal proceedings were pending at the time of the suspension, that no investigator had been properly appointed, and that the suspension exceeded the maximum duration allowed by statute without a hearing.

• Section 733.37 | Suspension of accused pending hearing.
• Pending any proceedings under sections 733.35 and 733.36 of the Revised Code, an accused person may be suspended by a majority vote of all members elected to the legislative authority of the municipal corporation, but such suspension shall not be for a longer period than fifteen days, unless the hearing of such charges is extended upon the application of the accused, in which event the suspension shall not exceed thirty days.

Charges were not served on Miller until November 21, 2025—approximately 175 days after the suspension—according to the complaint.

Miller alleges that the charges were vague, failed to identify witnesses, and included allegations he describes as meritless, such as claims of dishonesty without identifying any false statements. He further alleges that the trustees intend to serve as both witnesses and adjudicators at his termination hearing, scheduled for December 15, 2025.

The lawsuit asserts that Miller was denied notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to his suspension, and that he was not provided even a minimal pre-deprivation hearing. It also alleges that township policies and customs permitted discipline without due process and restricted employees from accessing or discussing records relevant to their defense.

In addition to his federal due process claims, Miller asserts a state-law public policy claim, alleging that his suspension and proposed termination were motivated by his disclosure that a firefighter’s training was revoked due to prior workers’ compensation claims. The complaint alleges that retaliating against an employee for disclosing such conduct undermines the public policy embodied in Ohio Revised Code § 4123.90.

Miller seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, reinstatement, and compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $75,000. A jury trial has been demanded.