Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS—E.D. Mo.: Police officer failed to show employer’s justification for his termination pretextual—untruthfulness in interview, (Jul 31, 2025)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

Untruthfulness has special significance where police officers are concerned because they are often called as witnesses for the prosecution in criminal cases.

The City of Dexter and its police chief were granted their motion for summary judgment against a police officer’s First Amendment retaliation claim, ruled a federal district court in Missouri. The defendants’ proffered reason for the employee’s termination was the untruthfulness that he reportedly exhibited during an internal-investigation interview. The employee admitted that he wrongly denied discussing unionization with at least one individual outside of the police department during his interview. Thus, the employee failed to put forth sufficient evidence to conclude that the defendant’s justification for his termination was pretextual (Brotz v. City of Dexter, No. 1:23-cv-00120-MTS (E.D. Mo. July 28, 2025)).

The employee worked as a police officer for the City of Dexter until he was fired on April 16, 2020. He was a member of a police union and was known to recruit other employees to become members.

Union discussions. In late 2019, the police chief gave a verbal order to officers within the police department, prohibiting them from discussing the union or conducting union business while on duty. The employee learned of the order by word-of-mouth and doubted that the order would be enforced. Accordingly, he and several other officers continued to discuss the union and encouraged others to join the organization while on duty.

While on patrol in April 2020, the employee stopped and discussed the topic of unionization at the residence of an employee in the city’s street department. The two men apparently discussed the employee’s interest in forming a union and the fact that city employees had undertaken an unsuccessful unionization effort in the past.

Internal investigation. After the police chief was notified of this exchange, he asked a police captain to conduct an internal investigation to determine whether the employee had violated his union-related order. As part of the investigation, the captain interviewed the street department employee and learned about the on-duty, union-related conversation.

The employee was placed on administrative leave with pay during the investigation, and he sat for an investigatory interview on April 09, 2020. During the interview, the employee denied that he had spoken to anyone outside of the police department about unionizing. The captain concluded that this was a “false or untrue statement” in his investigation report.

In addition to finding that the employee was insubordinate for violating the chief’s order, it was also found that he had violated the department’s standards of conduct with respect to untruthfulness and perjury. After learning that the employee had been untruthful during his investigatory interview, the police chief recommended to the city council that the employee be terminated. The council unanimously voted to terminate the employee’s employment.

Lawsuit. The employee filed suit in state court asserting one count of wrongful termination against the city of Dexter and the police chief. He alleged violations of his rights to free association, due process, and other constitutional rights. After the defendants removed the action to federal court, they moved for summary judgment on all of the employee’s claims.

First Amendment retaliation. The employee argued that he asserted a valid claim of First Amendment retaliation because: (1) he engaged in constitutionally protected activity with respect to the union; (2) his interest in that protected activity outweighed the police department’s interest in governmental efficiency; and (3) the defendants’ proffered, non-discriminatory reason for his termination was a pretext for unlawful retaliation.

Decisionmaker. As an initial matter, the court rejected the police chief’s argument that he cannot be held liable for damages stemming from the employee’s termination because he was not the ultimate decisionmaker who effectuated his termination. Rather, the Eighth Circuit has explained that there is sufficient causation when an individual sets “in motion a series of acts by others which the actor knows or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict constitutional injuries on third parties.”

Here, it was undisputed that the issue of the employee’s termination was placed before the city commissioners based solely on the recommendation of the police chief. Therefore, the police chief can be held individually liable for recommending the employee’s termination if he made his recommendation in retaliation against the employee’s protected First Amendment activity.

Merits of retaliation claim. As to the merits of the employee’s First Amendment retaliation claim, the court determined that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment. To prevail on his First Amendment retaliation claim, the employee must prove “that: (1) [he] engaged in activity protected by the First Amendment; (2) the defendant took an adverse employment action against [him]; and (3) the protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the defendant’s decision to take the adverse employment action.”

Here, the defendants did not dispute that the employee engaged in protected First Amendment conduct when discussing and conducting union business while on duty. Moreover, it was undisputed that the employee suffered an adverse employment action when he was fired from his position as a police officer. Therefore, the court proceeded to the third element of the employee’s First Amendment retaliation claim.

Motivating factor. The defendants first argued that the employee’s retaliation claim failed because he could not show any causal nexus between his union-related activity and his termination. However, the court noted that the employee pointed to undisputed facts that the police chief placed him under an internal investigation in response to being told that he conducted union activities while on duty, and the police chief was prepared to discipline him in some fashion for undertaking those activities. Moreover, the employee argued that the evidence supported an inference of retaliation because he was terminated just as he was reaching the number of recruits necessary to establish a union lodge in the department, and since his termination, all union activity in the department has ceased. Taken together, the court concluded that the employee has put forth sufficient, prima facie evidence that his termination was “causally connected to his participation in a protected activity.”

Untruthfulness. Still, the defendants put forth a legitimate, nondiscriminatory justification for the employee’s termination. The defendants’ proffered reason is the untruthfulness that the employee reportedly exhibited during his internal-investigation interview. Such misconduct has special significance where police officers are concerned because they are often called as witnesses for the prosecution in criminal cases.

Here, it was undisputed that, at the time of his investigation interview, the employee signed a document that required him to give “complete and truthful answers” to the questions asked of him during his interview and warned that failure to do so could result in disciplinary action up to and including termination. Since then, he admitted that he wrongly denied discussing unionization with at least one individual outside of the police department during his interview.

Pretext. A showing of pretext required the employee to demonstrate both that the employer’s articulated reason for the adverse employment action was false and that discrimination or retaliation was the real reason. The employee had to show that the employer “(1) failed to follow its own policies, (2) treated similarly-situated employees in a disparate manner, or (3) shifted its explanation of the employment decision.”

However, the employee failed to put forth sufficient evidence to create a triable question of fact of whether the defendants’ justification for his termination was pretextual. The employee put forth no evidence that the defendants either failed to follow their established policies or that their explanation for his termination has shifted over time. Further, the employee did not show that purported comparators “were similarly situated in all relevant respects.” Accordingly, the court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to the employee’s First Amendment retaliation claim.

The case is No. 1:23-cv-00120-MTS.

Judge: Schelp, M.

Attorneys: Peter O. Bruntrager (Bruntrager & Billings) for Jeremy Brotz. Paul F. Gordon (Fisher Patterson) for City of Dexter, Missouri, and Trevor Pulley.

Companies: City of Dexter, Mo.

Cases: IndividualRights PublicEmployees Labor UnionsMembers Discharge Retaliation MissouriNews