A Memphis firefighter who was terminated for an inappropriate social media submit in 2017, may have an opportunity to have his case reviewed once more by the Memphis Civil Service Fee, following a ruling by the Tennessee Courtroom of Appeals. Taurick Boyd, a 19-year veteran of the Memphis Fireplace Division, claimed he was punished extra harshly than equally located personnel.
Boyd, an African American, contends that three Caucasian firefighters had been disciplined however not terminated for his or her offensive posts. His submit was described within the Courtroom of Attraction’s ruling that quoted from his termination letter as follows:
- On April 26, 2017, you entered a non-public room on Fb known as Pettyville.
- In response to your testimony, that is an grownup room the place grownup humor is shared.
- You acknowledged that you simply pulled an image off one other Fb non-public room that you might not keep in mind the title of.
- This image displayed a condom displaying a purple substance on it that you simply mentioned represented blood.
- There was a caption below the image that sated “when woman scouts are higher than the cookies.”
- When requested by one other particular person why use a condom you acknowledged “Fuck go Uncooked.”
- This immediately created a hearth storm of destructive feedback geared toward your posts and feedback.
Boyd’s termination was upheld by the Civil Service Fee, who concluded that his disciplinary historical past differentiated him from the comparability firefighters. He then appealed to the Chancery Courtroom for Shelby County claiming that the Fee failed to totally distinguish him from three equally located firefighters who posted much more offensive content material, however who weren’t terminated. The trial court docket agreed with Boyd, concluding the Fee’s “choice was arbitrary and capricious, and made in violation of Non-public Boyd’s proper to equal safety.”
That prompted town to attraction to the Tennessee Courtroom of Appeals, claiming the Chancery Courtroom exceeded its discretion. Whereas agreeing that the Chancery Courtroom overstepped its authority, the Courtroom of Appeals remanded the case again to the Chancery Courtroom, concluding as follows;
- Non-public Boyd maintains that the termination of his employment was arbitrary and capricious and was in violation of his proper to equal safety as a result of the MFD didn’t comply with its guidelines and imposed self-discipline disparately amongst equally located staff.
- Particularly, Non-public Boyd, who’s African American, maintains that, whereas his employment was terminated, different Caucasian staff weren’t fired though they violated the MFD’s social-media insurance policies in methods much like Non-public Boyd.
- An arbitrary and capricious choice is one that isn’t primarily based on any course of reasoning or train of judgment, or one which disregards the details or circumstances of the case with out some foundation that might lead an affordable particular person to achieve the identical conclusion.
- A call unsupported by substantial and materials proof is essentially arbitrary and capricious.
- Substantial and materials proof is “such related proof as an affordable thoughts may settle for to assist a rational conclusion” and to “furnish a fairly sound foundation for the choice into account.”
- Though the disciplinary letter specifies solely one of many earlier … disciplinary proceedings … the Commissioner held that the opposite firefighters’ “earlier disciplines [were not] as critical as Boyd[‘s].”
- Nevertheless, the Commissioner failed to elucidate the idea of his conclusion and didn’t focus on the opposite firefighters’ particular disciplinary violations or examine these to Non-public Boyd’s.
- Briefly, there is no such thing as a foundation for Commissioner’s discovering that “earlier disciplines [were not] as critical as Boyd’s.”
- Regardless of their dangerous judgment, all the opposite firefighters cooperated of their respective investigations, conceded that their actions had been offensive, issued public apologies, and eliminated the offensive postings. Non-public Boyd did all of these items as effectively.
- In fact, every of those firefighters … posted pictures, statements, or memes that had been offensive and in clear violation of MFD’s insurance policies.
- These postings brought on uproar locally and resulted in destructive press towards the MFD.
- But, solely Non-public Boyd’s employment was terminated.
- After reviewing your complete file earlier than the Fee, we’re involved that MFD Rule 103.01 was not adopted in Non-public Boyd’s case.
- As set out in context above, MFD Rule 103.01 required the MFD to implement a level of self-discipline that was “honest and constant,” and “progressive in nature except the offense dictates in any other case.”
- Though the Commissioner’s order notes that “[t]he three firemen to whom Boyd compares himself should not have comparable work histories,” the proof mentioned above reveals that [all four] did have comparable work histories and comparable disciplinary actions.
- MFD Rule 103.01, additionally requires consideration of “mitigating circumstances”; like [one of the comparators], Non-public Boyd’s offensive submit was made public by a 3rd get together.
- The Commissioner didn’t contemplate this reality.
- The MFD is additional charged with consideration of the “size of service and former file of the worker.”
- As mentioned above, each Non-public Boyd and [one of the comparators] had earlier disciplinary actions, however the Commissioner’s order merely states that “different violations weren’t minor-sexual in nature nor had been earlier disciplines as critical as Boyd.”
- Nevertheless, the Commissioner doesn’t analyze [their] earlier disciplinary actions towards Non-public Boyd’s. The Rule additionally requires consideration of the “[a]ttitude and conduct of the worker all through the investigation and private interview.”
- Though Deputy Chief Lock described Non-public Boyd’s angle as cavalier and dismissive, it’s undisputed that Non-public Boyd took down the offending submit, issued a public apology, and cooperated absolutely within the investigation—simply as [the other comparators] did.
- Briefly, the Commissioner’s discovering that Non-public Boyd and the opposite three firefighters aren’t equally located is “[u]nsupported by proof that’s each substantial and materials within the mild of your complete file.”
- The case is remanded to the trial court docket for entry of an order vacating the Fee’s choice and remanding to the Fee for additional proceedings in step with this opinion.
Here’s a copy of the choice: