Thomas Noon and Christopher Skidmore were police officers with the City of Platte Woods, Missouri. They raised concerns about the performance of Police Chief James Kerns over the course of their employment. Skidmore raised issues to Kerns about faulty radar equipment and unmaintained police vehicles, and Noon confronted Kerns about personnel issues and Kerns’ use of Department time to conduct personal business. Noon and Skidmore claim that Kerns did nothing to address their concerns.
In September 2019, Noon met with Kerns, encouraged him to resign as chief of police, and handed him a pre-drafted resignation letter. Kerns did not resign. Three days later, Noon and Skidmore anonymously sent a complaint document outlining their concerns about Kerns to Mayor John Smedley and the board of aldermen, noting over 180 violations of the Department’s standard operating procedures. Two months later, no investigation into Kerns had begun, so Noon and Skidmore decided to reveal to Smedley that they were the authors of the complaint document.
A local newspaper wrote about the allegations against Kerns in December 2019. Kerns learned that someone anonymously sent the complaint document to his fraternal organization. Noon and Skidmore wrote to Smedley again in January 2020, expressing their disappointment that the investigation into their complaints was closed without either of them being interviewed. The officers were terminated shortly thereafter.
Noon and Skidmore sued Smedley and Kerns, in their official capacities, for violating their First Amendment rights by retaliating against them for reporting their concerns. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the officers’ claims were barred by qualified immunity. The Court denied the motion, and the defendants appealed.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court explained that in order to judge whether the defendants were entitled to summary judgment, it had to determine whether a constitutional violation occurred, and if so, whether the right in question was clearly established at the time of the violation. The Court agreed that the officers proved both elements, and therefore, qualified immunity did not apply to Smedley and Kerns.
In evaluating the constitutional violation, the Court noted that the officers had to prove (1) they engaged in protected activity; (2) that the defendants took adverse employment actions against them; and (3) the protected speech was a “substantial or motivating factor” in the decision to take the adverse employment actions.
Whether the officers were engaged in protected activity required proof that (1) their speech was made outside of their official duties; (2) the speech implicated a matter of public concern; and (3) the officers’ interest in their speech outweighed the City’s concerns over the efficient function of the police department. The Court determined that reporting the issues outlined in the officers’ complaint document was not a part of their official duties. The allegations themselves were easily public concerns – corruption, financial mismanagement, and investigative failures in a government office. Although the defendants produced evidence the officers’’ actions caused disharmony among City police officers, that disharmony did not prevent the officers from performing their essential job functions, and so the officers’ speech interests outweighed those of the City. The officers established that they engaged in protected activity. The second and third elements were easily met, because the officers were terminated as a result of their speech, and thus the officers proved that a constitutional violation occurred.
The Court concluded that the officers’ constitutional right to free speech was clearly established at the time of their termination, because First Amendment protections are widely understood and “a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.” Therefore, Smedley and Kerns were not entitled to qualified immunity because they knowingly violated the officers’ constitutional speech rights.
Noon v. City of Platte Woods, Missouri, No. 22-3668, 2024 WL 903191 (8th Cir., 2024).