Noon v. Smedley, No. 22-3668 (8th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Two former police officers, Thomas Noon and Christopher Skidmore, were dismissed from their jobs in Platte Woods, Missouri, after submitting a letter of grievances about the police chief, James Kerns, to the city's mayor and Board of Aldermen. The officers filed a lawsuit against the mayor and police chief, claiming their First Amendment rights were violated under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, but the district court denied their motion. The defendants then brought an interlocutory appeal.
Noon and Skidmore had raised several concerns about Kerns's performance as Chief of Police, including issues with department vehicles, radar equipment, personnel, and Kerns's use of department time for personal business. After their concerns were not addressed, the officers sent a document outlining their grievances to the mayor and the Board of Aldermen. After the officers admitted to authoring the document, they were both removed from the department's schedule and eventually fired.
In reviewing the case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found that the officers had established a First Amendment violation. The court determined that the officers' speech, criticizing the police chief's leadership and alleging corruption and financial mismanagement, was made as citizens on matters of public concern. The court also concluded that the defendants failed to show that the officers' speech had an adverse impact on the department's operations. Finally, the court determined that the officers' First Amendment right to be free from retaliation for protected speech was clearly established. Therefore, the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. The court affirmed the district court's decision.
Court Description: [Grasz, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Gruender, Circuit Judge] Civil case - Civil rights. Plaintiffs, police officers for Platte Woods, Missouri, alleged they were terminated in violation of their First Amendment rights after they submitted a letter to the Mayor and the Board of Alderman containing grievances against the police chief. The district court denied the mayor's and police chief's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity and they appeal. The district court did not err in determining that the officers had created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants violated their First Amendment rights; the evidence showed the officers' speech, taken in the light most favorable to them, was made outside their regular duties as police officers; their speech was on a matter of public concern, and they have a possible First Amendment retaliation claim; additionally, under the Pickering test, the mayor and police chief failed to offer sufficient evidence of department disharmony to overcome the officers' First Amendment interests; the plaintiffs' rights were so clearly established at the time of the incident that a reasonably competent public official would have known terminating them for their speech was a constitutional violation.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.