A former member of the Woodrow Volunteer Fire Department in Lubbock County, Texas, has filed a pro se lawsuit in US District Court for the Northern District of Texas alleging the department discriminated against him because he has Multiple Sclerosis and dismissed him after he raised concerns about his treatment.

According to the complaint, John Newman Wright III disclosed his MS diagnosis on his membership application in 2023. Nonetheless, his application was accepted, he successfully completed his probationary period and was voted into full membership. He obtained a Texas EMT license, a Class B fire apparatus driver exemption, and certifications in firefighting, hazardous materials, pump operations, vehicle extrication, and incident command.

Wright alleges he became one of the department’s most active responders, and that department leadership authorized him to drive rescue apparatus and other vehicles, operate an engine pump at structure fires, and perform fireground, EMS, rehabilitation, accountability, and traffic-control duties.

The complaint alleges the department later restricted Wright’s ability to operate apparatus and treated him differently from members with other significant medical conditions. He contends the department dismissed him after he questioned that treatment and raised concerns about disability discrimination. The suit asserts claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act for disability discrimination and retaliation.

Quoting from the complaint:

• On or about July 4, 2024, Assistant Chief Christopher “Jake” Terrell allegedly chased Plaintiff around the station with a cattle prod or similar electrical device until Plaintiff fell to the ground in the presence of numerous department members.
• Plaintiff alleges that this conduct was humiliating and inconsistent with the professional standards expected of department leadership.
• During the South Plains Fair in September 2024, Plaintiff alleges that he was verbally berated by department leadership and told that if the decision belonged to that individual, Plaintiff would no longer be a member of the department.
• On or about August 5, 2025, Plaintiff met with members of the command staff regarding his status within the department and requested permission to resume driving department apparatus.
• Plaintiff sought clarification regarding his standing within the department and his ability to continue serving in the same capacity as other members.
• During that meeting, Plaintiff was not advised that he had committed any safety violations. received any disciplinary actions, or was physically incapable of performing his assigned duties.
• Plaintiff possesses an audio recording of the August 5. 2025 meeting.
• Plaintiff contends that the August 5 recording demonstrates that no legitimate safety concerns or performance deficiencies were communicated to him.
• In September 2025. Plaintiff completed the Dallas 9/l I Memorial Stair Climb, demonstrating his physical ability to complete a strenuous event shortly before his dismissal.
• Plaintiffs participation is documented through photographs. witness testimony, and other evidence.
• On September 24, 2025, Plaintiff discussed his treatment by department leadership with a member of the department’s governing board.
• Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff believes department leadership became aware that Plaintiff believed he was being subjected to disability discrimination.
• During the October 7, 2025 membership meeting, Plaintiff alleges that Captain Richard Hemandez stated that Plaintiff’s Multiple Sclerosis constituted a safety liability and represented that other command staff shared that opinion.
• Plaintiff possesses an audio recording of that meeting.
• Plaintiff alleges that other department members with significant medical conditions continued serving as firefighters and continued operating department apparatus.
• Plaintiff alleges that he was treated differently than those members.
• Plaintiff was authorized to operate department apparatus on numerous occasions, including incidents documented by Exhibits 3 and 4.
• Plaintiff alleges that no safety concern were raised when he was authorized to operate department apparatus.
• Plaintiff responded to a two-vehicle motor vehicle accident during late February or early March on a foggy morning where emergency medical personnel directed him to assist with patient care by entering the ambulance after command staff initially hesitated.
• Plaintiff alleges that he appropriately performed his assigned duties during that incident.
• Plaintiff alleges that following these events, department leadership began treating him differently.
• Following a meeting of the department’s governing body, Plaintiff was called back to the station and informed on October 9, 2025 that he was no longer a member of the department.
• Prior to his dismissal, Plaintiff had never received a written disciplinary action or formal reprimand.
• On October 10. 2025. Plaintiff was informed that concerns allegedly existed regarding potential legal action and that he allegedly failed to satisfy a driver qualification standard that Plaintiff contends was not equally applied to other members.
• Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s stated reasons for his dismissal were false and pretextual.
• Plaintiff possesses audio recordings, witness testimony, photographs, videos, response records, certifications, emails, text messages, and other evidence supporting his claims.