Supreme Court Declines to Hear Case of Fire Chief Alleging Religious Discrimination
Ronald Hittle, the former fire chief of Stockton, California, lost his attempt to bring a religious discrimination case to the nation’s highest court after being fired over multiple misconduct allegations. Among those was an anonymous accusation calling him a “corrupt, racist, lying, religious fanatic.”
Part of the city’s reasoning for his termination was his participation—alongside fellow managers—in a leadership summit for Christian leaders held during work hours.
Hittle filed a lawsuit claiming he was dismissed due to his Christian beliefs. However, lower courts determined that his evidence was insufficient to advance to trial. Hittle argues that the legal framework used to assess workplace discrimination—established more than five decades ago—needs to be reevaluated.
Despite that, the Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up his case, steering clear of a potential high-profile decision on faith-based discrimination in the workplace. This comes as the Court is already weighing several other religion-related cases, including those involving religious expression in schools and tax benefits tied to religion.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch expressed that they would have granted the appeal. Thomas said Hittle had offered enough evidence pointing to discriminatory intent, suggesting the case might have helped clarify standards for when such employment claims should move forward, according to media reports.
Hittle was officially dismissed in 2011 following an internal review that concluded he demonstrated poor leadership, failed to log time off properly, showed favoritism, and attended a religious conference while on duty—among other concerns.
The conference in question was a faith-based leadership summit that, as reported by USA Today, Hittle said he had attended with the city’s approval as part of his leadership development.
He maintains that attending the Global Leadership Summit was central to his firing, saying that a deputy city manager accused him of involvement with a “Christian Coalition.”
“When an employer acts for a discriminatory reason, it cannot automatically avoid liability just because lawful reasons also motivated it,” his legal team told the Court.
In contrast, city officials argue that Hittle is distorting the appellate court’s findings and that there's no reason to revisit the Supreme Court’s 1973 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green ruling, which they describe as a “settled touchstone of employment-discrimination law.”
“The City’s reasons for terminating (Hittle) were well-documented and entirely appropriate for the Ninth Circuit to rely upon,” city attorneys told the Court, per USA Today.
Separately, the Supreme Court also declined to hear two significant gun rights cases earlier this month. One involved a challenge to Delaware’s restriction on “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines. The other questioned Maryland’s handgun licensing requirements.
In doing so, the justices avoided engaging in legal battles over hotly contested Second Amendment issues.
The Delaware case centered around objections from gun rights groups and firearm advocates seeking to halt enforcement of a state ban on semi-automatic weapons and magazines holding over 17 rounds, after a lower court refused to issue a temporary block.
Although these types of weapons have been used in several major mass shootings, Reuters pointed out that FBI data shows most gun-related homicides involve handguns.
In the Maryland case, the Court declined to review a ruling that upheld the state’s permit system for purchasing handguns as consistent with the Second Amendment. The lawsuit was brought by Maryland Shall Issue and other plaintiffs.
While the justices passed on those two appeals, they have not yet ruled on additional challenges involving Maryland’s ban on assault weapons and a Rhode Island case concerning large-capacity magazines.
With a 6-3 conservative bench, the Supreme Court has leaned toward an originalist view of the Second Amendment in landmark rulings since 2008.
Delaware’s gun control laws, enacted in 2022, bar the sale of various semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 and AK-47. However, residents who possessed these weapons before the law took effect are allowed to keep them under certain conditions. The legislation also outlaws high-capacity magazines, including those acquired prior to the ban.
Plaintiffs in the Delaware case include local residents who wanted to purchase the restricted firearms, a licensed gun dealer, and advocacy groups like the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation.