Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—E.D. Mo.: City employee fired after Black coworker’s alleged ‘slave owner’ remarks advances claims, (Jun 10, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

Her supervisors also allegedly brought in someone to address the “racial tension” who told her she would never experience racism because of her white privilege.

A white specialist in a city’s diversion program for low risk offenders who claimed her supervisors sat in silence while a Black coworker who served as a mentor for program participants repeatedly described her as a “slave owner” and told she was incapable of doing her job because of her skin color, and then discharged her ostensibly because she sent text messages indicating it would be her goal to get the coworker fired, survived a motion to dismiss her Section 1981 claims against the city officials for race discrimination and retaliation. A federal district court in Missouri also allowed her Title VII and Section 1983 Monell claims against the city to advance to discovery (Goetz v. Gardner, No. 4:23-cv-00031-SEP (E.D. Mo. Jun. 6, 2025)).

In October 2021, the employee started working at the Circuit Attorney’s office of the City of St. Louis as a specialist in a “diversion program” designed to allow low risk offenders to attend classes and training to avoid incarceration. Once a participant graduates from the program, their charges are dismissed. The employee previously had 23 years of experience as a probation and parole officer. She reported to the circuit attorney (CA), who was a Black elected official, and also claimed she was supervised by the CA’s first assistant.

Participant’s presentation. In April 2022, she arranged for students to visit the CA’s office. A young Black man who was a participant in the diversion program gave an incoherent presentation, and two of the first assistant’s children who attended the field trip made a video in which they impersonated and mocked him. Previously, the participant told the employee that he had been “hanging out” with a Black coworker who served a mentor in the diversion program.

Alleged “bullying” video. During a meeting on May 4, the CA announced that she had seen the video and had concluded the participant was “not on track” to graduate, and the first assistant and mentor agreed. The first attendant also stated that he lied when he told the employee that he and the mentor were “hanging out.” However, the employee voiced her belief that he was being punished for his poor public speaking skills and how the first assistant’s children presented him in their video.

Afterwards, the participant told her that the mentor had taken him to Hooters. She discussed the situation with the program’s prosecuting attorney, who was also white. Afterwards, she sent an email to the CA urging they not “punish a young man for poor presenting skills, and that holding him back because of a mocking video arguably constituted cyber bullying.”

“Slave owner” remarks begin. On May 18, the mentor allegedly yelled at the prosecuting attorney about the wording on a proposed graduation certificate, insisting that the words “Felony Redirect” on the certificate “sounded like prison language.” He also told her she had “noodles for a brain” and was “acting like a slave owner.”

May 19 meeting. The next day, a meeting was held to discuss the participant’s situation during which the FA told the employee that she did not understand that in Black vernacular “hanging out” implied participation in inappropriate activity. She became emotional and described the interaction between the mentor and prosecuting attorney the night before, but he repeatedly interrupted and stated, “All you do is act like slave owners.” He also told her, “You will never know how to help these people. You are not Black. The only reason these people are doing good is because of me.” Eventually, the employee stated, “I’m feeling attacked because I’m not Black.” But the mentor continued to call her a slave owner and told her she would never help the participants. Meanwhile, the CA and first assistant sat in silence.

The CA eventually called in another city staff member to address the “racial tension.” In response, he told the employee that the office must protect the CA “because she is a Black elected woman with a new agenda and people who don’t like it,” and asked her if she “understood that because of her White privilege, [she] [would] never experience racism.”

Texts lead to firing. Afterwards, she sent the prosecuting attorney a series of texts in which she complained about the discriminatory treatment and suggested she would make it her goal to get the mentor fired. The next day, the first assistant told her that she had been placed on administrative leave pending investigation into those texts. On May 26, she was terminated.

Race discrimination. Denying the defendants’ bid to dismiss the employee’s Section 1981 claims against the CA and her first assistant, the court found that she plausibly alleged she was fired because of her race. In particular, she alleged that they sat in silence as her coworker referred to her as a “slave owner” and indicated that she was not capable of her job because she was not black, and then brought in someone who justified the coworker’s discriminatory statements and told her that she would never experience racism because of her white privilege. She claimed she was then placed on unpaid leave the next day, pending an investigation into texts she had sent regarding the incident and fired less than a week later without explanation.

Retaliation. Her Section 1981 retaliation claim also advanced since she plausibly engaged in protected activity when she complained at the May 19th meeting that “I’m feeling attacked because I’m not Black” and in her subsequent text messages to the prosecuting attorney. Under the particular circumstances of her treatment during the meeting, she plausibly had an objectively reasonable belief that an actionable Section 1981 violation had occurred. Insofar as the defendants claimed her text messages could not constitute protected activity because she threatened a coworker’s employment, and the CA was free to terminate her for vowing to make the termination of her coworker her mission, this argument was more appropriate for the summary judgment stage.

Claims against city. In addition to denying the defendants’ bid to dismiss her Title VII claims against city without the benefit of discovery, the court found that she brought a plausible Section 1983 Monell claim on the basis that the CA’s firing was the act of an authorized high-level decisionmaker. Notably, the decision was not reviewable by the civil service commission since pursuant to state law, she served “during the pleasure of the circuit attorney.” Therefore, the CA possessed final authority to establish municipal policy with respect to the employee’s termination.

The case is No. 4:23-cv-00031-SEP.

Judge: Pitlyk, S.

Attorneys: Erich V. Vieth (Erich Vieth, Attorney at Law) for Rebecca Ann Goetz. Aaron E. Schwartz (Lasher Holzapfel Sperry & Ebberson PLLC) for Kimberly Gardner.

Cases: RaceDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge PublicEmployees CoverageLiability Retaliation MissouriNews