The mayor and chief of police for the City of Platte Woods are not immune to a lawsuit filed against them citing retaliation for whistle blower claims.
That finding was upheld last month in the United States Court of Appeals. This appeal was made after the judgment of the Western District of Missouri in 2022 denying immunity to the elected officials.
“Former Platte Woods, Missouri, police officers Thomas Noon and Christopher Skidmore (collectively, “the Officers”) were terminated from their jobs after they submitted a letter to Platte Woods Mayor John Smedley and the city’s Board of Aldermen containing various grievances about the police chief, James Kerns,” the judgment states. “The officers sued Smedley and Kerns, alleging First Amendment retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Smedley and Kerns moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, and the district court denied their motion. Smedley and Kerns now bring this interlocutory appeal. We affirm.”
Noon and Skidmore raised several concerns about Kerns during their employment with the city, including the failure to service department vehicles, radar equipment that gave false readings, personnel issues and Kerns’ use of department time to conduct personal business. In September 2019 Noon met with Kerns and urged him to resign. He did not.
Later in September, Kerns and Skidmore submitted an anonymous complaint packet to the city and its board of aldermen. The packet outlined hundreds of concerns and those concerns were quickly dismissed by the mayor and board of aldermen.
In November 2019, Skidmore’s job duties were changed after he was revealed as one of the authors of the complaint packet. In December 2019 The Citizen published an expose on the contents of the anonymous complaint. In January 2020 both Skidmore and Noon were removed from the police department schedule and by March they were both terminated.
The officers filed suit in state court, alleging Smedley and Kerns violated First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Smedley and Kerns removed the case to federal court and moved for summary judgment, claiming they were entitled to qualified immunity.
“Smedley and Kerns claim they are entitled to qualified immunity,” the finding states. “As with every qualified immunity analysis, we are tasked with a two-part inquiry to determine (1) whether a constitutional violation occurred, and (2) whether the right in question was clearly established at the time of the violation. Nord v. Walsh Cnty., 757 F.3d 734, 738 (8th Cir. 2014). The district court determined the Officers (Noon and Skidmore) created a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Smedley and Kerns violated their First Amendment rights, and therefore Smedley and Kerns were not entitled to qualified immunity. We agree.”