The decision to fire a 26-year-old decorated police officer for wearing a department-issued hat to shield himself from the sun while directing traffic has ignited a storm of criticism from unions, legal advocates, and law enforcement advisers who say the punishment is grossly disproportionate and retaliatory.

Brandon Saylor, who had worked for the Mason Police Department for four years with a clean disciplinary record and a lifesaving commendation, was fired on July 6, 2026, following an internal investigation that cited insubordination and dishonesty.

The alleged crime: wearing a city-issued ball cap during an outdoor traffic control detail in May.

The case has become a flashpoint in a broader dispute over union representation, due process, and what advocates describe as a pattern of anti-union conduct by city leadership.

The incident and the policy conflict

The dispute centers on a uniform policy contradiction that left Saylor in an impossible position.

What happened:

• In May, Saylor was assigned to direct traffic at an outdoor car show in hot weather.

• He was issued a department ball cap, which is standard equipment for summer outdoor details.

• However, Mason Police Department policy prohibits visible tattoos while on duty and allows coverage on only one limb.

• Saylor's tattoos meant he could not wear the summer uniform (shorts and short sleeves) that would have authorized the hat.

• After feeling his forehead beginning to burn, Saylor put on the hat anyway.

• A sergeant later confronted him about wearing the unauthorized hat. (There is a dispute about whether this conversation occurred before or after the detail.)

• A social media video later surfaced showing Saylor wearing the hat while directing traffic.

According to Saylor's counsel, Zachary Gottesman, the city's own collective bargaining agreement and general orders contain provisions allowing officers to wear "uniform items necessary for adequate protection from weather conditions."

Ohio law similarly requires employers to furnish safe employment and protect employee health and safety.

"At most, this was a minor uniform issue," Gottesman said. "It was not dishonesty. It was not insubordination. And it certainly was not grounds to end the career of a good police officer."

Termination and disputed disciplinary rocess

Mason's internal investigation produced a 29-page report that cited insubordination and dishonesty as grounds for termination.

But Saylor's representatives say the disciplinary process itself violated his contractual rights.

The representation dispute:

• Dan Hils, president of Front Line Advisors, a Cincinnati-based law enforcement advisory firm, was representing Saylor during administrative interrogations.

• When Hils showed up for Saylor's pre-disciplinary hearing, city administrators directed him to leave the police station.

• Saylor was forced to proceed through the hearing without representation.

• Hils said Saylor "did not want to waive his hearing. He wanted to be represented, bring up facts. Have someone there to question supervisors. Brandon didn't get any of those things."

Gottesman's statement argues the city violated Section 25.1 of the collective bargaining agreement, which guarantees employees the right to union representation during disciplinary proceedings.

"The City's handling of this matter also violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement," Gottesman wrote. "Officer Saylor was denied his contractual right to representation during the disciplinary process."

Backlash: Unions unite

The termination has triggered an unprecedented show of solidarity among Mason's public employee unions, who say the case exemplifies a broader pattern of retaliation and union-busting by city leadership.

Three unions issued a joint statement condemning the city:

• Mason Police Association

• Mason Professional Firefighters IAFF Local 4049

• Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local Union 100 (Teamsters Local 100)

Their allegations: The unions accused city management of creating "an increasingly hostile and toxic labor environment" marked by:

• Violations of collective bargaining agreements

• Reprisals and threats against employees who exercise contractual rights

• Vindictive and retaliatory decision-making

• Denial of basic due process

• Scapegoating individual employees to create fear and intimidation

"The unions have observed a troubling pattern in which City leadership attempts to isolate individual employees, exaggerate or manufacture alleged misconduct, deny due process, and use discipline or threats of discipline to send a message to the rest of the workforce: challenge management at your own risk," the joint statement said.

The unions called on the Mason City Council to hold city administration accountable and demanded compliance with contracts, policies, and legal obligations.

City leadership cautiously breaks silence

Mason Mayor Josh Styrcula addressed the controversy at the Monday, July 13, city council meeting, his first public comment on the matter.

"I also want to express my confidence in our city manager and the leadership team that serves our community every day," Styrcula said. "They are entrusted with making difficult decisions often with information that cannot be shared publicly, and while those decisions are not always easy or universally accepted, I have confidence that they were made thoughtfully and professionally, and in the best interest of our community."

The mayor cited "legal contractual obligations" as the reason the city would not comment on specific facts of the case.

The Mason Police Department and city administration have otherwise declined to respond to media inquiries, citing personnel privacy protocols.

Broader context: Union politics and timing

Hils and Saylor's legal team suggest the firing may be rooted in union politics rather than the hat itself.

Hils was recently voted in to represent officers in disciplinary hearings—a position that would give him influence in personnel disputes. He believes his intervention on Saylor's behalf, and his subsequent removal from the hearing, may have been retaliation for his union role.

"This is some sort of targeting. I have no idea why. Brandon has no idea why. It's extremely disappointing," Hils said.

In a statement, Hils characterized the termination as "the most unjust, unfair, and outrageous punishment I have witnessed in my decades in law enforcement."

He also noted the timing.

"A sergeant confronted Officer Saylor AFTER the detail and told him not to wear the hat in the future. Now, according to the sergeant the order was before the detail not after. Oh, didn't yet mention that a picture of Officer Saylor wearing this felonious uniform hat was seen on social media. So instead of 'he said/he said', this is about when he said."

Hils concluded: "This is more likely about the city of Mason's defense of an outdated tattoo policy and a little bit of (or a lot of) union busting."

What's next: Arbitration and reinstatement push

Saylor's case is headed to arbitration, where an independent arbitrator will review the termination.

Gottesman's statement calls for Saylor's reinstatement and argues the city has exposed itself to legal and financial liability.

"Chief Wells and the City Administration are damaging morale within the Mason Police Department, undermining confidence in leadership, and exposing Mason taxpayers to unnecessary liability," Gottesman wrote.

Saylor, who has a wife and newborn daughter, still hopes to wear a badge—either with Mason or another department.

"This is gonna be something that's gonna linger, and there's gonna be long memories," Hils said, signaling that the unions intend to pursue the matter aggressively and use it as a rallying point against what they view as anti-union conduct by city leadership.