Four Grand Blanc Township Firefighters Sue Over Alleged Retaliation Following Chief Support

Four Grand Blanc Township Firefighters Sue Over Alleged Retaliation Following Chief Support

Four part-time firefighters in Grand Blanc Township filed a federal lawsuit on Monday, April 13, claiming they faced retaliation for publicly supporting their fire chief after a deadly church attack in September 2025. The lawsuit names Grand Blanc Township and Superintendent Dennis Liimatta as defendants.

The four firefighters allege their First Amendment rights were violated after they spoke out about fire department staffing concerns and supported Fire Chief Jamie Jent. Jent had been placed on administrative leave following the September 28 attack at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which killed four people and burned the building to the ground.

The lawsuit states the attack was carried out by Thomas Jacob Sanford, 40, of Burton. Five people died during the incident, including Sanford. Nine other people were injured.

According to the lawsuit, only five firefighters from Grand Blanc Township responded to the call due to understaffing, forcing the township to rely on crews from surrounding municipalities. After the incident, Fire Chief Jent continued to advocate for additional full-time firefighters to maintain safer staffing levels.

The lawsuit claims the firefighters publicly supported Chief Jent and his desire for appropriate staffing levels. The plaintiffs exercised their First Amendment right to free speech by communicating with friends, family members, and other township residents about the situation.

The lawsuit alleges that after public outcry prevented the removal of Chief Jent from his position, Superintendent Liimatta began retaliatory actions against the four firefighters. The plaintiffs claim Liimatta changed the procedure for becoming a full-time firefighter, eliminating part-timers from seeking such a position.

The lawsuit states the four firefighters Alexander Newton, Alfred Perry, Ryan Jeltema, and Jakob Stifferman were seeking full-time firefighter positions. They allege that qualified applicants would have to take a test and those meeting the minimum test score would move onto the interview process.

Prior to September 2025, plaintiffs Jeltema and Stifferman had applied for the full-time firefighter position and qualified to take the test. Several had been interviewed by Defendant Liimatta and received favorable responses and comments. In 2024, Defendant Liimatta told Plaintiff Stifferman he was qualified for the job and could see him in the job if there was another spot.

The lawsuit claims Liimatta began lobbying to have Jent removed as Fire Chief in October 2025. Liimatta was able to have Chief Jent's termination on the agenda at an October 28, 2025 meeting. The agenda item was removed the morning of the meeting due to public outcry, but residents and firefighters still turned out in support of the chief.

The lawsuit alleges Liimatta began retaliatory action against the plaintiffs for speaking on an issue of public concern. The plaintiffs claim Liimatta changed the methods for hiring a full-time firefighter so the group would not qualify to take the test. The plaintiffs also allege Liimatta changed the process to consider applicants from outside the department.

Damages exceeding $75,000 are being sought in the lawsuit.

A statement provided by Grand Blanc Township noted they were made aware through media reports of the lawsuit by the employees alleging unlawful retaliation in employment practices. The township said they have not been officially served or notified of any legal action. The statement read they will vigorously defend against the claim. The township stands behind and supports Fire Chief Jent, Superintendent Liimatta, and the personnel department in their hiring and employment practices.

The judge will review the lawsuit and determine if the firefighters claims have merit. The lawsuit highlights the complex dynamics between firefighters, fire department leadership, and local government officials, especially in the aftermath of a tragic incident that exposed staffing concerns within the department.

The case raises questions about free speech protections for public employees and the challenges faced by smaller fire departments in maintaining adequate staffing levels.