Fire chief who hurled disabled man’s phone over hedge was unfairly sacked over the bust-up, tribunal rules
A senior firefighter who was sacked for throwing away a disabled YouTuber’s phone was unfairly dismissed, a court has heard.
John Linden, a station manager who worked for the Norfolk Fire Department for 32 years, was fired in June 2023 after an argument with blogger Jimmy Evans.
The former firefighter was caught on camera throwing the Youtuber’s phone over a fence while fighting a blaze near the banks of the Great Ouse in King’s Lynn.
Mr Evans, who uses a wheelchair and mobility buggy, was at the scene of the fire at Hardings Pit.
In the video taken by Mr. Evans, who described himself as a journalist, the two were seen engaging in a verbal argument.
The YouTube blogger was heard saying “I’m the press, man” as the fire chief approached him and that he was “legally allowed to do that.”
Mr Linden told him he was ‘putting himself in danger’ and urged him to leave
Mr Evans argued he had the right to remain where he was, about 100 meters from the fire, before Mr Linton grabbed his phone.
John Linden was the station manager and had been with the Norfolk Fire Department for 32 years before being dismissed.
A veteran firefighter has been sacked by the Norfolk Fire Department following an altercation with Youtuber Jimmy Evans.
Tensions escalated further after the pair had a disagreement and Mr Evans accused the fire chief of taking his phone, throwing it over the fence and walking away.
This led to an investigation and disciplinary hearing that resulted in Mr. Linden being fired for misconduct.
At the employment tribunal last month, Mr Linden, who had been employed for 32 years, argued he had been unfairly dismissed by Norfolk Fire Brigade.
Although his other three complaints were dismissed, the court ruled that he had been unfairly dismissed due to ‘failures’ in the police’s procedures.
The firefighter took his case to court and has now won his unfair dismissal claim.
He claimed in court that he was discriminated against because of his diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
At the hearing, he explained that he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder after years of physical abuse in his childhood and the traumatic events he experienced while serving as a firefighter.
Other allegations against the fire department include failure to make proper adjustments and breach of contract.
Mr. Linden said he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder following years of physical abuse in his childhood and traumatic events while serving as a firefighter.
The former firefighter was fighting the blaze when he became involved in an argument with Mr Evans, who was filming for his YouTube channel.
Norwich Magistrates’ Court, where the hearing was held, was told the firefighter claimed his diagnosis led him to react ‘in an exaggerated manner’ to Mr Evans, who produces videos under the name Wheelz Media.
Mr Linden said he approached Mr Evans and warned him not to go any closer to the fire as his safety would be compromised.
But the court was told Mr Evans refused and “became aggressive”.
This was followed by an “instant” reaction from Mr. Linden; Mr Linden said Mr Evans deflected his swinging arm while he was still sitting in the trolley, resulting in the loss of his phone.
Mr Evans complained to the Norfolk fire brigade about Mr Linden’s behavior and said he could not find his phone, although he and his girlfriend returned to the site to look for it.
The fire chief told Mr Evans he would be paid compensation totaling £300 for the loss of his phone and that an internal investigation would be launched.
The investigation was conducted by Peter Rowe and took two months to complete.
In August 2023, Mr. Linden was dismissed for gross misconduct.
Tensions between the pair escalated and Mr Evans accused the fire chief of taking his phone, throwing it over the fence and walking away.
It was heard Mr Evans, who runs a channel called Wheelz Media, was known to the fire service and Mr Linden knew him as ‘coercive and abusive’.
Employment Judge Andrew Spencer said: ‘In recent years, [Mr Linden] and her colleagues have had to deal with self-proclaimed social media ‘monitors’.
‘These people go to sites and public spaces to film emergency workers and often upload the content to social media platforms.
‘Some are being aggressive and obstructive, aiming to produce content online and trying to capture negative responses in order to publish it online.
‘It is possible to monetize the results through social media channels such as YouTube.’
Gus Baker, a lawyer specializing in employment and discrimination law representing Norfolk Fire Brigade, argued that Mr Linden’s reaction would have been a ‘normal’ response to Mr Evans’ behavior and was not due to post-traumatic stress disorder.
He argued that anyone who watched the video would find Mr Linden’s version of events ‘incredible and hard to believe’.
Mr Baker said: ‘You snatched his phone as he was responding to you.’
Picture: Dismissed firefighter John Linden (right) receives the Distinguished Service Award
The video was key to Mr. Linden’s dismissal.
Mr Evans describes his online blogging company as ‘control on wheels’.
Mr Evans said: ‘I don’t think his PTSD had anything to do with what happened that day.
‘Yes, he may have PTSD from a number of different events and I agree with that.
‘But I don’t think that’s why he attacked me.
‘I never wanted the man to be fired, I just wanted an apology from him.
‘This was all about him taking my phone without my permission and throwing it into a bush.’
Mr Evans said he had a previous good relationship with the fire service and claimed he had already spoken to another officer at the scene.
Explaining how Mr Evans’ phone flew over a nearby hedge, Mr Linden said the man reacted within ‘a split second’ to change the direction of his swinging arm, which resulted in the phone disappearing.
But the court heard Mr Evans, who did not give evidence at the hearing but made the request, was known to be confrontational before the King’s Lynn incident.
Judge Spencer found that there were procedural errors during the investigation that led to Mr Linden’s unfair dismissal.
He said the investigation needed to be more ‘rigorous’ for a potentially ‘career-ending decision’.
Judge Spencer said the police fire chief had instructed Mr Rowe not to interview crew members who might have witnessed the incident.
Referring to an email in which the fire chief made the request, the judge said: ‘This was inappropriate; It amounted to a clear instruction to Mr Rowe not to interview potential witnesses to obtain statements from them.
‘He tried to narrow the scope of the investigation. Mr. Rowe complied. He did not interview witnesses or take formal statements from them.
‘It was inappropriate for the fire chief to give this instruction and interfere with the scope of the investigation.’
Mr Evans was also not asked for the full footage of the incident and skipped over what happened before and after the incident, even though they had previously discussed it before Mr Linden threw away his phone.
Mr Linden (pictured outside Norwich Magistrates’ Court) successfully claimed he had been unfairly dismissed because he had been discriminated against for having PTSD
Judge Spencer said: ‘Mr Evans should have been asked to produce the full version of the footage so that the ‘before and after’ parts of the incident were available.
‘[Norfolk Fire Service] He knew that there were other parts of the incident that were filmed and not posted online.
“It was not difficult to infer from this that the footage may not have portrayed Mr Evans in a positive light and may have been helpful.” [Mr Linden’s] case. These images should have been requested.’
Judge Spencer said no medical evidence was sought to establish whether Mr Linden’s PTSD was a ‘contributing factor’ to the incident.
He said: ‘Finding that the dismissal was procedurally unfair requires us to conclude that no reasonable employer could have followed that process. Perfection is not necessary.
‘But it could also be argued against this that the fact that this was a potentially career-ending decision was such that a reasonable employer would be expected to be stricter.
‘We have concluded that there were so many procedural errors in this case that the procedure followed [fire service] is outside the range of reasonable responses.
‘The dismissal was procedurally unfair.’
Mr Linden said he had done a lot of high-profile work and had won many awards for it.
Mr Linden also failed to sue Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate and breach of contract.
Speaking after the court, Mr Linden said he lost ‘more than a job’ when he was sacked from the fire service.
He said: ‘I have worked hard throughout my career. I ended up with PTSD and encountered many aggressive people.
‘This person has caused trouble for us before and he has caused trouble for the police before.
‘There was aggression, how dynamic it was. ‘He suddenly became aggressive towards me and I lost my career of 32 years.’
Mr Linden said Mr Evans had previously threatened a colleague and made sure to inform his staff about it.
He said fire officers were not trained on how to deal with ‘difficult people’.
He said the incident had a ‘profound impact’ and left him ‘shaken’.
Mr Linden said Mr Evans had previously threatened a colleague and had ’caused problems’ with the service in the past
He said: ‘I have added a lot to my strength. I’ve done a lot of high-profile work, won a lot of accolades.
‘I’m sorry to be disappointed. This affected me, it affected my family. ‘I really don’t think I’ve had a good night’s sleep in two years.’
Speaking after the court, Mr Evans said: ‘I know everyone blames me for him losing his job. But he decided to take my phone and if you watch the video you’ll see the phone fly.’
Judge Spencer ruled that although Mr Linden’s claims for breach of contract, adverse treatment and failure to make reasonable adjustments all failed, his unfair dismissal claim was well founded.
He said: ‘There are so many procedural errors in this case that the procedure followed by the defendant is outside the range of reasonable response.’
‘The dismissal was procedurally unfair. The unfair dismissal complaint is accepted on these grounds.’
