A Firefighter Terminated for Misbehavior Gets His Job Back

The long, strange journey of Portland Fire & Rescue Lt. Peter St. John, a hero turned outcast, took another turn last week.

What happened? The Oregon Employment Relations Board ruled on May 20 that Portland Fire & Rescue must rehire St. John.

The decision marks a big win for St. John, whom Portland Fire & Rescue terminated Nov. 16, 2022, after both a criminal investigation in Clackamas County (no charges were filed) and an internal fire bureau investigation.

How did we get here? St. John first entered the public eye in 2016, when a gas explosion ripped through Northwest 23rd Avenue, injuring eight people, including St. John, who was thrown 20 feet in the air and suffered two broken legs. Then-Portland Fire Chief Mike Myers credited St. John with saving lives by clearing buildings before the explosion.

But in September 2020, St. John’s then-wife told bureau officials her husband had engaged in an online chat in 2014 with an unidentified woman. St. John told his wife that he and the woman had exchanged photos of their young children and the woman had said she “wouldn’t mind sleeping with” St. John’s child.

Police and the Oregon Department of Human Services investigated. After reviewing the police investigation, Scott Healy, now first assistant district attorney in Clackamas County, wrote in a memo that although his office would not bring charges, St. John failed in his duty as a mandatory reporter of potential sex abuse, allegedly beat his wife, and “should no longer be a member of the Portland Fire Bureau, or any fire department for that matter.”

Portland Fire & Rescue investigators reached the same conclusion after reviewing further allegations, including that St. John had sent text messages to a female firefighter and a female 911 operator that made both women feel uncomfortable.

When the bureau terminated St. John, the International Association of Fire Fighters Local 43, of which St. John is a member, swung into action, filing a grievance and seeking arbitration. On Nov. 1, 2023, arbitrator Eric Lindauer returned his decision.

Lindauer found that the city had just cause to discipline St. John for five of seven allegations against him and determined his online conversation with the woman and failure to report it “demonstrated a lack of moral character and brought discredit and reproach to himself and to the Bureau.” But Lindauer ruled the penalty—termination—was excessive.

He knocked the discipline down to a 30-day unpaid suspension and ordered the fire bureau to reinstate St. John with more than a year’s back pay and benefits. That might have been the end of the story because the fire union’s contract with the city calls for binding arbitration—i.e., both sides agree to accept the arbitrator’s decision.

What did the city do? In November 2023, the city took an unusual step—it refused to take St. John back. The city’s argument: St. John’s behavior was so egregious that it met a narrow statutory exception that allows an employer to ignore an arbitrator’s decision. “The values exhibited by Lt. St. John are incompatible with our mission,” fire bureau spokesman Rick Graves said then. “We strongly believe Lt. St. John’s conduct warrants termination and that there is a strong public policy interest in support of our position.”

The union then appealed the city’s refusal to the Oregon Employment Relations Board.

WW first reported St. John’s case early this year (“Family Ties,” Jan. 10).

What did the Employment Relations Board say? “The City has not established that the arbitration award conflicts with any public policy,” the Board ruled on May 20. “Consequently, we conclude that the City has not established that the arbitration award in this case violates a clearly defined public policy set forth in a statute or judicial decision.”

What happens now? “The city will comply with the ERB’s order to reinstate Mr. St. John,” Graves of the fire bureau says. The City Attorney’s Office and Fire Commissioner Rene Gonzalez declined to comment.

Isaac McLennan, the president of the union, says that’s the right outcome. “It is our job to make sure members are treated fairly under our contract agreement with the city, and if discipline occurs, it is appropriate,” McLennan says. “In this case, the city did not follow just cause.”