A legal dispute between the Sweet Home Fire and Ambulance District and a former staffer, Zach Lincoln, has ended in a settlement agreement.
Fire Chief Nick Tyler announced to the district Board of Directors at their Nov. 18 meeting that a resolution had been reached, but added that there was a waiting period to make sure all the parties were comfortable with the agreement.
He said later that terms of the settlement are “confidential.”
“There was no financial impact to the fire district,” Tyler said.
Lincoln appeared at the SHFAD Board’s April 2023 meeting, where he outlined alleged incidents of misconduct by department administrators and staffers. The 15-year district veteran,was terminated March 29 of that year after not signing a settlement agreement after being on administrative leave for more than 11 months.
In letters to board members he had sent previously, Lincoln had alleged “violations of Oregon and federal law, including allegations of criminal conduct” regarding current Chief Nick Tyler and his predecessor, Dave Barringer.
He claimed the district had violated 21 Oregon laws dealing with issues including discrimination, workplace harassment, sick leave, family leave, workers compensation, return to work by injured employees, reasonable accommodation, disability issues, prohibited conduct by public employers, whistleblower retaliation and other alleged violations.
Lincoln, representing himself, filed a complaint against the district in Linn County Circuit Court on April 15, 2024. Circuit Court Judge Thomas McHill dismissed the case in May of 2024 and awarded the district over $7,000 in attorney’s fees and costs.
The state Employment Relations Board, following a June 2024 hearing, held at SHFAD, dismissed Lincoln’s complaints about the civil service process that resulted in his termination, ruling that he had failed to meet filing deadline requirements and did not testify at the hearing.
A separate hearing before Administrative Law Judge B. Carlton Grew on Nov. 20-21, 2024, and Jan. 16-17, 2025, involved an unfair labor practice/duty of fair representation complaint by Lincoln against the Sweet Home Professional Firefighters IAFF Local union. Grew dismissed the case on May 2 after “repeated nonresponses” from Lincoln, according to the order in the case.
According to court documents, Lincoln, again representing himself, sued the district in federal court in Eugene on April 10, 2024, alleging that Tyler, Barringer and the district violated his first, fourth and 14th amendment rights, state law and administrative rules and its own policies by retaliating against Lincoln and “wrongfully terminating him” from his position as a lieutenant in the department.
He sought $1.1 million in economic damages, lost wages and employee benefits.
In May of this year, District Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai ruled that two of Lincoln’s nine claims could proceed, while dismissing the others.
- Lincoln alleged that Barringer had violated his Fourth Amendment rights preventing unreasonable search and seizure by using a first responder application installed on Lincoln’s phone to track Lincoln’s location for a non-emergency response purpose. Lincoln said in the lawsuit that he had called in sick to work because he was nervous about Barringer’s presence.
The district argued that the statute of limitations for that claim had expired, but the judge ruled that was not the case, that the incident in question had actually occurred within the window allowed by law, and therefore ruled that the complaint could stand.
- The judge also ruled in favor of Lincoln’s complaint that he had been improperly prevented by SHFAD from receiving a civil service hearing after demanding such following his receipt of notice of his potential termination, as required under Oregon law. But he ruled that whether those claims were valid “is yet to be determined.”
- Lincoln alleged that SHFAD officials violated his First Amendment rights of free speech by retaliating against him for raising concerns about alleged wasteful spending and unlawful conduct. The judge ruled that Lincoln failed to show that the speech in question was directed at a matter of public concern, which is required by case law, but rather was related to his job duties, work environment and interpersonal relationships, which, courts have ruled, is not protected under the First Amendment.
- Lincoln alleged that the department violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by “maliciously” creating a “civil service system” to prevent him from receiving a public hearing regarding his pending termination. The judge ruled that Lincoln had been given “an opportunity for a hearing to dispute the allegations made against him” and failed to meet the legal requirement that he prove that the district had “engaged in any conduct that shocks the conscience or was constitutionally arbitrary.”
- Lincoln also complained that the department lacked policies and procedures to address claims of workplace harassment, but the judge ruled that Lincoln’s claim was not one that the state law requiring such policies was enacted to prevent, and therefore dismissed that claim.
- Lincoln alleged that when he applied for a part-time job in Salem after his termination, Tyler got him blacklisted, which, according to state law, is the intent to injure someone by preventing them from securing future employment. But the judge ruled that Lincoln failed to allege that there was actual malicious intent or a wrongful act. Rather, the judge ruled, Lincoln had simply described how Tyler had been contacted and the Salem job offer, which was conditional, was rescinded after that conversation.
- Lincoln also alleged that the department (Tyler and investigator Timothy Doney, who had been hired to conduct an investigation into whether Lincoln had violated any policies) violated state law by failing to provide records and refusing to acknowledge that they even existed. While the judge cited Lincoln’s assertions that he had requested records he was seeking “at least six times,” he ruled that Lincoln had not proven he had made a formal public records request as required by state law. He also noted that Lincoln failed to allege that he had filed a petition to the District Attorney’s Office, which had denied the request.
- Lincoln alleged that the department failed to follow state law in giving him a chance to return to work after an injury, which, the judge noted, “appears to be anxiety caused by the 2012 modified HIV results.” However, the judge ruled, Lincoln’s complaint stemmed from incidents that occurred in 2022, and state law limits the right of reinstatement to three years from the actual injury, which occurred in 2012.
- Lincoln complained that department officials changed his work schedule in violation of his union contract and state law in an effort to force him to resign. The judge ruled that the law cited by Lincoln did not cover his type of work and therefore he was not covered under that statute.
Kasubhai on Nov. 26 granted a motion by SHFAD to end the case.