Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, RETALIATION—D. Kan.: Police officer who previously sued for sex discrimination advances retaliatory harassment claim, (Apr 30, 2026)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

The officer alleged that a series of retaliatory incidents, taken together, led to disadvantageous employment conditions for her.

The City of Topeka, Kansas, will have to defend at trial a female police officer’s claim it retaliated against her in violation of Title VII when, after her prior lawsuit alleging unlawful sex discrimination, it engaged in retaliatory harassment. Denying the city’s motion for summary judgment, a federal court in Kansas found the city’s alleged conduct, including conducting a protracted unfair investigation, undermining her authority within the chain of command, and giving her undesirable assignments, when considered in the aggregate, rose to the level of a materially adverse action (Cross v. City of Topeka, Kansas, No. 24-4092-KHV (D. Kan. Apr. 27, 2026)).

Prior lawsuit. In January 2023, 19 years after she began working as a municipal police officer, the plaintiff sued the city alleging it and the police chief subjected her and two coworkers to a hostile work environment, disparate treatment on the basis of sex, and retaliation. Although the officer’s claims were dismissed on summary judgment, her coworkers prevailed at trial.

Promotion. A month after she filed the lawsuit, the police department offered her a promotion to captain. During the ceremony, according to the officer, the police chief spoke in a manner that suggested he did not believe she deserved the promotion. She claimed he also excluded her from conversations with other employees and assigned her to be dispatch liaison, which she viewed as an undesirable position.

PIP. After her promotion, she attempted to address the performance issues of a lieutenant who reported to her by placing the lieutenant on a performance improvement plan in October 2023. She first discussed her concerns about the lieutenant with a major, the deputy chief, the chief, the HR interim director, and they all approved the PIP.

Depositions. Around this same time, September and October 2023, the officer, in connection with her initial lawsuit, took the depositions of the chief and the deputy chief.

Bullying complaint. In November, an investigator in the city’s legal department notified the officer that the lieutenant had filed a complaint accusing her of bullying by setting unattainable expectations, complaining loudly that she was inept, and discussing her own mental health struggles with the lieutenant and directing her to seek treatment.

Investigation. The investigator scheduled a meeting with the officer but when the officer stated that she planned to record the meeting because it was not against policy, the investigator rescheduled the meeting. At the rescheduled meeting, the investigator again denied the officer’s request to record it. During the meeting, the investigator was purportedly angry, rude, accusatory, and adversarial in tone.

Grievance. Seventy-eight days later, the investigator determined that the officer had bullied the lieutenant. The officer grieved the findings, arguing that the expectations she sets for lieutenants mirror the expectations outlined in department policy and that identifying areas in which a subordinate needs improvement cannot categorically be labeled as bullying. The major who had supported the lieutenant’s PIP not only agreed that the officer’s concerns were “worthy of consideration,” he also testified that had he fully supported her in this instance, he would have been concerned that the department would have retaliated against him because “[t]here is a constant [air] of possible retaliation from the Chief’s office.”

Complaint. The interim HR director overturned the finding of workplace bullying and the officer filed an internal complaint against the investigator, the lieutenant, and the lieutenant’s supervisor. She alleged that while the average investigation in 2023 took 20 days, her investigation took 78 days, the investigator interviewed only witnesses favorable to the lieutenant, and her findings were inconsistent with documents the officer provided during the investigation. The day after the officer filed her complaint, the interim HR director was placed on involuntary administrative leave.

Adverse employment action. Arguing it was entitled to summary judgment on the officer’s retaliation claim, the city contended that she failed to establish a specific adverse employment action. The officer, however, countered that the protracted, “unfair investigation, coupled with an unjust conclusion undermining her [chain of command] authority” constituted an adverse employment action. Further, she argued, all “of the above retaliatory incidents, taken together, led to disadvantageous employment conditions for [her] that collectively created a hostile work environment.” In other words, said the court, she alleged “a single claim of retaliation, i.e. that because she filed a lawsuit against the City in January of 2023 and took the depositions of [the chief] and [deputy chief] in the fall of 2023, defendant engaged in retaliatory harassment.”

Retaliatory harassment. And retaliatory harassment, observed the court, if sufficiently severe, can constitute an adverse employment action for purposes of a retaliation claim. Here, the court continued, the officer presented evidence that the manner in which the chief announced her promotion was disrespectful and suggested that she did not deserve it; he blatantly ignored her and excluded her from conversations with others; he assigned her to be dispatch liaison, an undesirable assignment, shortly after her promotion; the investigator did not allow the officer to record her interview, only interviewed employees who were biased against her, and repeatedly delayed the investigation; and the city created an atmosphere where her supervisors, peers, and subordinates ignored, second-guessed, and undermined her supervisory decisions.

Noting that it analyzes retaliation claims in the specific context of the alleged adverse action, the court explained that the relevant context here includes the authority structure of the police department and the need for a police captain to be able to give effective orders to subordinates. In that context, said the court, “it is entirely plausible that a reasonable police officer would be dissuaded from making a charge of discrimination if she anticipated that the police department would retaliate by disrespecting her in front of her peers, conducting a protracted unfair investigation, undermining her authority within the chain of command and giving her undesirable assignments.”

Causal connection. As to the city’s argument the officer could not establish a causal connection between her protected activity and the alleged harassment, the court pointed out that just over a month after she filed her initial lawsuit, the chief announced the officer’s promotion in a disrespectful manner and suggested that she did not deserve it. He also ignored her and excluded her from conversations and assigned her to an undesirable position.

Further, less than three months after the officer deposed the chief and deputy chief, and during the investigation into the complaint against her, the investigator refused to allow her to record her interview, only interviewed employees who were biased against her, and repeatedly delayed the investigation. And when the interim HR director overturned the investigator’s findings regarding bullying, the city placed her on involuntary administrative leave. Moreover, the major testified that had he fully supported the officer in her grievance of the investigative findings, he would have been concerned the department would retaliate against him. This, said the court, was sufficient to establish a causal connection.

Pretext. As to pretext, the court noted that while the city explained why it took certain actions, it did not offer nonretaliatory reasons for every alleged act of harassment. For example, it did not explain why the chief treated the officer’s promotion differently, refused to engage with her, excluded her from conversations with others, and assigned her to an undesirable position.

And to the extent it offered nonretaliatory reasons for certain actions, such as the procedure for investigating the lieutenant’s complaint, the court found the officer presented evidence of a “constant [air] of possible retaliation from the Chief’s office,” which was sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact whether the city engaged in the challenged conduct because the officer engaged in protected activity. Based on all of this, the court denied the city’s motion for summary judgment.

The case is No. 24-4092-KHV.

Judge: Vratil, K.

Attorneys: Christopher Playter (Playter & Playter) for Jennifer Cross. Amanda S. Vogelsberg (Henson, Hutton, Mudrick, Gragson & Vogelsberg) for City of Topeka, Kansas.

Companies: City of Topeka, Kansas

Cases: Retaliation SexDiscrimination Discrimination PublicEmployees KansasNews