Two former probationary firefighters have filed suit in federal court against the Clark County Fire Department and the fire chief alleging they were subjected to race discrimination, a racially hostile work environment, and retaliation that culminated in their forced resignations just before the completion of their probationary periods. The complaint asserts claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.  

Plaintiffs Jerone Moten and Gregory Tinsley, both African American firefighters, were members of the department’s February 2024 recruit academy. Last November, we covered an earlier suit with similar allegations from a firefighter in the same academy. Here is that coverage.

According to the complaint, approximately 78 recruits entered the academy, with 58 graduating in June 2024 and beginning probationary assignments throughout the department. Both plaintiffs allege they successfully completed their probationary task books, received validation from multiple captains on required competencies, and initially earned predominantly positive performance evaluations.  

Allegations Concerning Firefighter Moten

According to the complaint, Firefighter Moten was assigned to Station 33, where he received favorable evaluations during approximately his first five months on the job. The complaint alleges that conditions changed after an incident involving a damaged electrical power box and an exposed power line.

Moten contends that while establishing a safety perimeter, he was directed by a captain to move closer to the energized line while walking backward. His turnout gear reportedly protected him when his leg contacted the exposed wire. The complaint alleges that the captain then berated him, telling him that the fire service “wasn’t for him,” referring to him as a “wet milk carton,” and stating that he would make sure Moten was fired.  

The complaint also describes another incident at Station 33 involving a discussion about religion during dinner. Moten alleges that after learning he was Christian, a captain made degrading remarks about Moten’s mother, including sexually explicit comments that caused other crew members to laugh.  

Moten further alleges that required probationary evaluations were frequently not completed. Although department policy allegedly required evaluations following each shift, the complaint contends that he was missing approximately 20 to 30 evaluations. The lawsuit alleges that these missing evaluations deprived him of developmental feedback while later negative evaluations were used against him.  

The complaint also alleges that Moten received threatening messages discouraging probationary firefighters from signing up for overtime, warning that doing so was “a dangerous game” that could damage their reputations. According to the complaint, another firefighter instructed him to confront a fellow rookie who had accepted too much overtime because he was “taking money and food out of other firefighters’ family’s mouths.”  

On January 31, 2025, one shift before completing probation, Moten alleges he was directed to report to Station 18, where he met with the fire chief, a battalion chief, a union representative, and two armed individuals. According to the complaint, he was told he was “not CCFD material” and was given the choice of resigning or being terminated and never being allowed to reapply. Moten resigned and was escorted from the building.  

Allegations Concerning Firefighter Tinsley

Firefighter Tinsley alleges he likewise began probation with mostly positive evaluations before later receiving a series of negative performance reviews after assignment to Station 34 and subsequently Station 18.  

Among the incidents described in the complaint is an occasion when Tinsley was required to demonstrate rope knots before the crew. After forgetting two knots, a firefighter allegedly yelled, “Are you fucking kidding me? Do you not fucking care?” The complaint alleges that another firefighter later criticized him for practicing knots while at the station, telling him he should work on them at home instead.  

The complaint also alleges that after responding to a shooting, three probationary firefighters failed to wear safety glasses despite being instructed to do so, but only Tinsley received a negative evaluation. In another incident, he allegedly received an unsatisfactory evaluation after inadvertently using another employee’s air pack during an equipment check, despite being told he had otherwise performed well.  

According to the complaint, Tinsley attended a 40-shift evaluation meeting in December 2024 where he was told he had approximately six weeks to improve and “would be fine” if he stopped receiving unsatisfactory evaluations. The lawsuit alleges that he then received approximately six consecutive weeks of satisfactory evaluations while assigned to several different stations before being returned to Station 18, where he contends the earlier pattern of negative evaluations resumed.  

The complaint also references a private Discord group used by probationary firefighters. According to the allegations, a senior firefighter gained access through another rookie and sent messages warning that signing up for overtime was “a dangerous game,” that it would “ruin your reputation,” and reminding probationary firefighters of their at-will employment status.  

Tinsley further alleges that Station 18 had a longstanding history of discrimination, citing allegations involving an earlier African American firefighter and academy instructor, as well as another minority probationary firefighter who allegedly began receiving negative evaluations after assignment there.  

On January 30, 2025, Tinsley alleges he was directed to report to Station 18 headquarters, where he met with the fire chief, a deputy chief a battalion chief and a union rep. According to the complaint, he was informed that because of the number of unsatisfactory evaluations, he could either resign or be terminated. The complaint alleges that Tinsley was one of five minority probationary firefighters—including two African Americans, two Hispanics, and one Asian firefighter—who were given similar ultimatums.  

Claims Asserted

The complaint alleges that both firefighters were constructively discharged because of their race rather than their job performance. It contends that although each plaintiff received some negative evaluations, both had generally positive performance records and had completed their probationary task books.

The plaintiffs further allege that Clark County selectively enforced its evaluation system by withholding required evaluations from minority probationary firefighters while providing complete evaluations to similarly situated Caucasian probationary firefighters, ultimately resulting in the minority firefighters being forced to resign before completing probation.  

Based on those allegations, the complaint asserts claims for race discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under both Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and other relief.  

Clark County has responded by filing a motion to dismiss the complaint. The defendants argue that the complaint fails to allege sufficient facts connecting the plaintiffs’ treatment to their race. They contend that the allegations describe performance-related supervision, interpersonal conflicts, and probationary employment issues rather than actionable racial discrimination. The motion also argues that the hostile work environment claims identify no conduct based on race and that the retaliation claims fail because the complaint does not allege either plaintiff engaged in activity protected by Title VII before the challenged employment actions occurred.  

Here are copies of the complaint and the county’s motion to dismiss: