Eighth Circuit Rules That a Firefighter Terminated for Posting Pro-Life Image on His Facebook Page Can Take His Case to Jury

A firefighter, who puts out fires and saves lives, was fired for posting a message about saving unborn lives.

Does it makes sense? It does if you’re a raging leftist or a cowardly conservative. Which one were officials in Forrest City, Arkansas?

During the George Floyd/summer riots era, Steven Melton, a pro-life Christian and firefighter, posted on his Facebook page a silhouette image of a baby in the womb and noose with the caption, “I can’t breathe.” A retired supervisor complained. Melton deleted it (PDF).

All’s well that ends well? Not quite. The mayor, Cedric Williams, placed Melton on administrative leave. Then came the pile-on. The mayor, two retired firefighters, some lawyers, and HR decided he should leave permanently.

Melton filed a lawsuit against the city and the mayor on First Amendment grounds. A lower court dismissed Melton’s claims that the mayor fired him in retaliation, and he appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The issue:

Does a Forrest City fireman who lost his job because he posted a provocative image on his personal Facebook page have a First Amendment retaliation claim that can get to a jury? We conclude that he does.

The three-judge reversed the lower court’s summary judgment on the retaliation claims. Melton can take his case to trial.

Alliance Defending Freedom (AFL) filed an amicus brief on the case. From AFL:

Governments can’t monopolize the marketplace of ideas, otherwise organizations like The Douglass Leadership Institute, The Radiance Foundation, and Speak for Life, which stand for life—especially in Black communities that are disproportionately affected by abortion—wouldn’t be free to speak without fear of government reprisal. The court’s decision allows free speech to flourish for all.”

Because the pro-life image didn’t affect his job, and no current firefighter complained, granting summary judgment against Melton “runs the risk of constitutionalizing a heckler’s veto,” the court wrote. The concerns were “vague and conclusory.”

If the city and the mayor don’t settle the case, a jury will get to hear how they may have retaliated against Melton for expressing a view they opposed.