... He was fired on Jan. 6 by Atlanta’s mayor, Kasim Reed, for homophobic language in the book, “Who Told You That You Were Naked?” Among other things, he called homosexuality a “perversion,” compared it to bestiality and pedophilia, and said homosexual acts are “vile, vulgar and inappropriate.”
Mr. Cochran had already been suspended for a month in November for distributing the book to staff members. Following an internal investigation, the mayor did the right thing and dismissed Mr. Cochran for what he called poor judgment: specifically, for failing to get approval for the book’s publication, for commenting publicly on his suspension after being told not to, and for exposing the city to possible discrimination lawsuits.
... This case is not about free speech or religious freedom. It is, as Mr. Reed said at a news conference, about “making sure that we have an environment in government where everyone, no matter who they love, can come to work from 8 to 5:30 and do their job and then go home without fear of being discriminated against.”
... It should not matter that the investigation found no evidence that Mr. Cochran had mistreated gays or lesbians. His position as a high-level public servant makes his remarks especially problematic, and requires that he be held to a different standard.
[emphasis added by bubba]
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/13/opinion/god-gays-and-the-atlanta-fire-department.html?_r=0
finally it appears we have identified why the fire chief was terminated: "dismissed Mr. Cochran for what he called poor judgment: specifically, for failing to get approval for the book’s publication, for commenting publicly on his suspension after being told not to, and for exposing the city to possible discrimination lawsuits"
before i get into this let's also observe what the fire chief was NOT terminated for doing: "the investigation found no evidence that Mr. Cochran had mistreated gays or lesbians"
this is a very important distinction. there is NO evidence that the fire chief acted in any discriminatory manner. however, he was fired because he could have exposed "the city to possible discrimination lawsuits". but we now know that he did not so so. once again, there is NO evidence that the fire chief discriminated against any of his staff. but he was terminated because he might. how just is that as a basis of termination?
let's go to the issue that he failed to get approval for writing this book. the fire chief insists he cleared it with the ethics official and the ethics official does not say he did not. however, the mayor now objects insisting that the fire chief failed to seek and obtain the mayor's approval. now, why would the fire chief, after obtaining the OK from the designated ethics official, feel the need to pursue this matter at a higher level?
and while the city of atlanta placed the fire chief on suspension it forbade him from commenting publicly about the matter. a matter he did discuss while in his church, while not having received any compensation from the city. so, it is OK to withhold one's salary but then tell them that they cannot discuss a matter that impacts them. and yet there are those who will still insist this is not a first amendment matter, where the city of atlanta believes it can deprive a citizen of free speech and then terminate him for exercising that right
personally, i abhor the position the fire chief took in his book. but i similarly dislike those who tout their pro-life viewpoints to the detriment of personal choice. i don't like it when trim managers express a dissatisfaction with those who allow themselves to be out of shape. but this is not about what i or anyone else likes or dislikes about one's personal opinions. one's actual performance should be determinant about how the employee comported him/herself on the job. and as was shown above, in no way has the fire chief acted in a discriminatory fashion, despite what he has written
here is the mayor's expectation: [this case is] about making sure that we have an environment in government where everyone, no matter who they love, can come to work from 8 to 5:30 and do their job and then go home without fear of being discriminated against
and we find that NO one was actually discriminated against. that's the fact of the matter. but how realistic is the mayor in expecting no employee should be "without fear of being discriminated against". we cannot control an employee's fearfulness. the mayor's expressed expectation is an unreasonable one. one that should not result in the termination of a fire chief who, after investigation, was found to have not engaged in discrimination
this is a bogus termination
