Brandon Saylor, a Mason police officer, was terminated on July 6 after a departmental investigation concluded that he had been dishonest about a seemingly minor uniform matter.
The controversy began on a sweltering May day when a sergeant handed Saylor a department‑issued baseball cap; Saylor placed it on his head, only to later learn that the department’s summer uniform — short‑sleeved shirts, shorts and the cap — was barred for him because of the tattoos covering his arms.
Saylor’s legal team, led by Dan Hils of Front Line Advisors, contends that the department altered the narrative after the fact, charging him with insubordination and dishonesty in an effort to set a precedent for other officers who might seek outside counsel.
Uniform Policy and the Cap Incident
Mason’s uniform code prohibits visible tattoos and restricts hat usage to specific circumstances, a policy that has forced Saylor to forgo the summer cap despite its official issuance, highlighting the tension between personal expression and departmental aesthetics.
According to Hils, Saylor was never explicitly told he could not wear the cap before he put it on, creating a factual dispute that the department used to justify termination without due process.
Union Representation and Accusations of Busting
Zach Gottesman, also of Front Line Advisors, argues that the firing is part of a broader strategy to control the police union through reprisals, a claim the Mason city government has refused to address publicly.
The Mason police union retained Front Line Advisors two years ago to provide external representation in employment disputes, a move that appears to have triggered the department’s retaliatory response, Hils says.
Saylor plans to file a grievance with the city, maintaining that the dismissal violates both the department’s own policies and the rights of public‑sector employees to seek independent counsel.
Broader Implications for Police Unions
Labor experts note that firing an employee for seeking external representation can constitute an unfair labor practice, and the allegations in this case may trigger investigations by the Ohio Labor Relations Board, though no formal complaint has been filed yet.
The episode underscores the delicate balance many police departments face when navigating internal discipline, collective‑bargaining rights and public perception, especially in a state where police unions have become increasingly vocal about member protections.