Breaking the Blue Ceiling: Topeka Female Officers Win $500K in Gender Discrimination Case

 Colleen Stuart, et al vs.  City of Topeka, Kansas, et al

Case Background

On January 18, 2023, Plaintiff Colleen Stuart, Jana Harden, and Jennifer Cross filed a Gender Discrimination lawsuit in the Kansas District Court (Case number: 2:23-cv-02021). District Judge Toby Crouse presided over the case.

Cause

In November 2021, Bryan Wheeles became the new Chief of Police for TPD. Shortly after, the department announced Captain Jamey Haltom as the new Deputy Chief without conducting a formal hiring process. The hiring committee passed over Stuart and Harden, both more qualified candidates, for the position. In December 2021, the department promoted Michael Cross, a male, to Major over Stuart and Harden, despite their superior qualifications and experience.

The plaintiffs described a work environment rife with discriminatory practices. Stuart reported hearing sexist comments such as “you need to man up” and “you have resting bitch face.” Harden was denied positions on the SWAT team multiple times, as leadership allegedly did not want a female on the team. Cross faced undue scrutiny of her social media presence and was reprimanded for conduct that male officers engaged in without consequence.

Throughout their careers, the plaintiffs consistently faced barriers to advancement. They were often told to obtain additional qualifications, such as master’s degrees, only to be passed over for promotions in favor of less qualified male candidates once they met these requirements. The TPD had never had a female Deputy Chief and had only one female Major in its history.

Injuries

The plaintiffs suffered career setbacks and lost opportunities for advancement due to the alleged gender discrimination. They experienced emotional distress from being passed over for promotions despite their superior qualifications. The discriminatory work environment negatively impacted their professional development and standing within the department.

Damages

The plaintiffs incurred economic damages in the form of lost wages and benefits from denied promotions. They also claimed non-economic damages for emotional distress resulting from the alleged discrimination. The complaint sought compensatory and punitive damages, as well as equitable relief.

 Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal representation

• Plaintiff(s): Colleen Stuart | Jana Harden | Jennifer Cross
  • Counsel for Plaintiff: Christie Jess| Mark A. Jess | Christopher Playter | Eric S. Playter

• Defendant(s): City of Topeka, Kansas | Bryan Wheeles
  • Counsel for Defendants: James Phillip Gragson | Kara Eisenhut

 Claims

The plaintiffs filed three main claims:

Gender discrimination in violation of Title VII against the City of Topeka: This claim alleged that the city, through the TPD, engaged in a pattern and practice of gender discrimination in its promotion decisions and treatment of female officers. The plaintiffs argued that their gender was a motivating factor in the department’s failure to promote them, despite their superior qualifications.

Violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against the City of Topeka: This claim asserted that the city, acting under color of state law, deprived the plaintiffs of equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs argued that the TPD’s discriminatory practices constituted a policy, custom, or practice of the city, making it liable for the actions of its agents and employees.

Violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against Police Chief Bryan Wheeles in his individual capacity: This claim specifically targeted Chief Wheeles for his role in the discriminatory promotion decisions and the maintenance of a discriminatory work environment. By naming him in his individual capacity, the plaintiffs sought to hold him personally accountable for violating their constitutional rights.

The plaintiffs alleged these violations stemmed from the TPD’s longstanding pattern and practice of gender discrimination in promotions and the disparate treatment of female officers. They argued that this discrimination was so ingrained in the department’s culture that it constituted a de facto policy, making the city liable for the resulting constitutional violations.

Defense

The City of Topeka and Chief Wheeles denied the majority of the plaintiffs’ allegations in their answer to the complaint. They admitted some basic facts about employment dates and positions but disputed most of the substantive claims. The defendants asserted that all their actions and employment decisions concerning the plaintiffs were based on lawful, non-discriminatory, and non-retaliatory reasons. They claimed the plaintiffs failed to state claims upon which relief could be granted and that some incidents may be barred by statutes of limitations.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover punitive damages and that any damages under Title VII would be subject to statutory caps. They stated that the plaintiffs failed to mitigate their alleged damages. The City and Chief Wheeles claimed they acted in good faith and had reasonable grounds to believe their actions complied with the law. They denied adopting any customs, policies, or practices that violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. The defendants asserted qualified immunity and absolute immunity defenses where applicable. They requested dismissal of the complaint with prejudice and asked for judgment in their favor, along with costs, attorney’s fees, and other relief deemed appropriate by the court.

Jury Verdict

On September, 19, 2024, the jury ruled in favor of plaintiffs Colleen Stuart and Jana Harden in their sex discrimination case against the City of Topeka, Kansas. The awards were as follows:

Colleen Stuart:

• Compensatory Damages: $200,000
• Back Pay and Benefits: $35,277.58
• Front Pay and Benefits: $42,593.67
• Total for Colleen: $277,871.25

Jana Harden:

• Compensatory Damages: $200,000
• Back Pay and Benefits: $11,059.20
• Total for Jana: $211,059.20

The total damages awarded by the jury amounted to $499,930.45 for both plaintiffs.

Court Documents:

Available Upon Request