A former Evansville, Indiana lieutenant has filed suit against the city alleging his termination over social media comments about immigration enforcement violated his First Amendment rights, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Lieutenant John Wesley Alexander claims the city selectively enforced its disciplinary policies and terminated him despite evidence that he had undergone treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and was medically cleared to return to duty.

The suit was filed November 5, 2026, in US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

Lieutenant Alexander joined the Evansville Fire Department in July 2016 and was promoted to lieutenant in June 2020. The controversy arose from comments he posted on February 20, 2026, in response to a WEHT/WTVW news story about a federal judge ordering Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to provide a detained man with a bond hearing or release him.

Posting from his personal social media account while off duty, Lieutenant Alexander wrote:

• Fuck no illegals don’t have rights only citizens grab and hold them for removal

In a second comment, he wrote:

• They need to check the Catholic diocese in Evansville they listed themselves as a sanctuary for illegals go check there we don’t have sanctuary here

According to the complaint, the comments did not identify Alexander as a lieutenant or employee of the Evansville Fire Department, nor were they made using city equipment.

On March 6, 2026, Fire Chief Tony Knight confronted Lieutenant Alexander with the comments, along with reports concerning a January 30 workplace discussion about ICE and an earlier social media incident for which Alexander had received a written reprimand in June 2024.

Chief Knight imposed a five-day unpaid suspension and recommended that the Evansville Fire Department Merit Commission terminate Alexander’s employment. Lieutenant Alexander offered to accept the suspension and a voluntary demotion rather than face termination, but Chief Knight rejected the proposal.

Nine days later, on March 15, Lieutenant Alexander entered the IAFF Center of Excellence for Behavioral Health Treatment and Recovery, where he was diagnosed with PTSD. He completed residential treatment on April 22, 2026.

According to the complaint, Alexander’s PTSD symptoms predated the social media controversy and included disrupted sleep, impaired concentration, memory difficulties, heightened stress responses, and difficulty regulating his emotions.

An April 21 letter from his treating physician cleared him to return to unrestricted duty effective May 6, 2026.

At his May 26 disciplinary hearing, Lieutenant Alexander presented evidence of his PTSD diagnosis, treatment, and medical clearance. He characterized the social media comments as a lapse in judgment during a mental health crisis and maintained that they did not reflect his ability or willingness to provide emergency services to all members of the community.

He also testified that he had stopped using social media, completed nine hours of cultural competency training, and was continuing therapy and peer support. He accepted responsibility for the misconduct and asked the commission to permit him to remain employed under a two-year arrangement that would allow him to demonstrate his rehabilitation. Quoting from the complaint:

• The requested arrangement included continued treatment and aftercare, EMDR or other clinically recommended therapy, peer support, EAP or aftercare compliance, cultural- competency or remedial education, and abstaining from social media or complying with social-media restrictions.
• Alexander offered to comply with a fitness-for-duty evaluation if the City believed one was needed and with probation or a last-chance agreement governing his continued employment.
• Alexander linked these proposals to his disclosed PTSD, treatment, and need to prevent a recurrence of his symptoms and related conduct.
• He sought prospective treatment and compliance conditions that would allow continued performance of his full duties.
• He did not request permission to violate conduct rules in the future or removal of an essential function of his position.

The commission voted 4-1 to terminate Lieutenant Alexander’s employment, effective May 26, 2026. Commission President Mike Dickinson cast the sole dissenting vote.

A central allegation in the lawsuit is that the department treated other employees accused of offensive or controversial speech more leniently.

According to the complaint, firefighters Lucas Macke and Scott Weber received coaching rather than termination for anti-ICE expression, including displays of “Fuck ICE” posters. During Alexander’s hearing, Commission President Dickinson questioned Chief Knight about Weber’s disciplinary history. Chief Knight acknowledged familiarity with the incident but could not recall the details or produce the disciplinary record.

The complaint also identifies an incident involving Lieutenant Chad Emsweller, who allegedly directed a racial slur toward a Black firefighter in late 2019 or early 2020. Lieutenant Emsweller reportedly received a five-day unpaid suspension and one year of zero-tolerance probation but retained his employment.

Alexander contends that these disciplinary disparities demonstrate that the city selectively enforced its conduct and social media policies.

His First Amendment claim alleges that his comments concerned immigration enforcement, a matter of public concern, and were made as a private citizen rather than in the performance of his official duties. He maintains that his interest in participating in public debate outweighed the city’s interest in restricting his speech under the circumstances.

The complaint acknowledges that the city relied on departmental conduct policies, workplace operations, and public trust in justifying the termination. But Alexander contends that the city selectively enforced its disciplinary policies, imposing termination for his pro-ICE comments while employees expressing anti-ICE views received substantially less severe discipline. Quoting from the complaint:

• Under the circumstances alleged, Alexander’s interest as a citizen in participating in public debate outweighed the City’s interest in restricting this particular speech.
• The expression was made off duty in a public news discussion, was not an official City communication, and was not part of his assigned work.
• Alexander had not withheld emergency assistance from the people discussed in the comments.
• The City’s use of coaching and continued employment for the other speech described above supports the inference that its asserted interests were applied selectively rather than consistently to comparable public controversy.
• Alexander alleges that the City would not have imposed the same termination absent his protected citizen speech and the viewpoint it expressed.
• He challenges the policies as applied to his speech; he does not seek a ruling that all off-duty speech by a firefighter is constitutionally protected.
• The Commission’s final removal decision was the City’s own decision through the body to which state and municipal law assigned final policymaking authority over the removal of an EFD lieutenant.
• That deliberate municipal decision caused Alexander’s loss of employment.
• The City’s liability is based on that final decision, not merely on respondeat superior.
• The City thereby violated Alexander’s rights under the First Amendment.

The ADA claims focus on the commission’s decision to terminate Lieutenant Alexander after learning of his PTSD diagnosis and receiving evidence of his treatment and recovery.

Alexander alleges that he was qualified to perform the essential functions of his lieutenant position, had been medically cleared for unrestricted duty, and requested a reasonable accommodation through continued employment subject to continued treatment and compliance with the conditions.

He contends that the city failed to engage in a good-faith interactive process to consider those proposed accommodations and instead terminated him. The complaint also alleges disability discrimination, retaliation for requesting accommodation, and interference with his ADA rights.

The lawsuit distinguishes Chief Knight’s March 6 termination recommendation, which preceded Alexander’s PTSD diagnosis, from the commission’s May 26 decision. Alexander does not claim that the earlier recommendation was motivated by his subsequent diagnosis or accommodation requests. Rather, he alleges that the commission’s final decision was unlawfully influenced by his disability and his efforts to obtain accommodation.

The FMLA claims arise from Alexander’s residential treatment and subsequent medical clearance. According to the complaint, the city’s Human Resources Department acknowledged his medical leave paperwork and requested documentation concerning his fitness to return to work.

Alexander alleges that his treatment constituted qualifying FMLA leave and that he was entitled to restoration to his position after completing treatment. He claims the commission’s termination decision unlawfully denied that restoration and retaliated against him for exercising his FMLA rights.

The seven-count complaint alleges First Amendment retaliation and viewpoint discrimination, ADA disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, ADA retaliation and interference, and FMLA interference and retaliation.

Lieutenant Alexander seeks reinstatement with restoration of rank, seniority, benefits, and pension rights, or front pay if reinstatement is not feasible. He also seeks back pay, compensatory damages where authorized, correction of his employment records, and attorney fees and costs.