On Thursday, the City of Hopkins filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit by former Clerk Teddy Phipps, who was dismissed by the City Council last year.
On January 27th, Phipps, represented by Edward Murphy of St. Joseph, filed a lawsuit against the City of Hopkins alleging Disability Discrimination, the creation of a hostile work environment, and violation of whistleblower protection laws.
On March 27th, 2024, Phipps filed a charge of Discrimination with the Missouri Commission of Human Rights, which he was required to do within 180 days. On October 30th, he was issued a Notice of Right to Sue.
Phipps argued that he is an Air Force veteran who has been diagnosed and treated for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, which he acquired as a result of his military service in the Middle East following the 9/11 attacks.
On April 2021, Phipps was hired as a part-time clerk. Prior to being hired, he made a full disclosure of his disability to the city. In June 2022, he was promoted to full time City Clerk and Treasurer. His duties included the collection of payments and accounting for municipal taxes and the city water and sewer service.
Beginning in March 2023, Phipps alleges he was exposed to a hostile work environment based on his disability and arising from what he said was the repeated and frequent abusive and offensive conduct of a co-worker that triggered episodes of PTSD. This alleged behavior continued through the end of his employment in March 2024.
The alleged behavior involved targeting Phipps with disparaging remarks, accusing him of violating the law, bullying tactics, and rude behavior, including remarks directed at his condition. Phipps alleges that he complained to the Mayor and City Council on multiple occasions to stop the hostile work environment, but that they did nothing because the co-worker was the only person employed by the city who was licensed operate the city water system.
Phipps alleges that he was in a protected class of employees under Missouri law due to his PTSD and that it played a role in his termination. As a result, he alleges that he is entitled to back pay, front pay, other past and future economic losses, emotional distress, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, other non-economic losses, attorney’s fees, and court costs.
In addition, Phipps alleges that he made allegations of violations of the law by the co-worker, mismanagement, gross abuse of authority, and violation of city policies. However, he alleges that the supervisors ignored this information in violation of the Missouri Whistleblower Protection Law.
On March 13th, the City of Hopkins, represented by Jill Ellen Frost, filed an answer denying the allegations in the lawsuit and denying that Phipps’ disability played a role in his termination.
In its answer, the city denied all the allegations and alleged in both its answer and in its motion to dismiss that Phipps failed to state a claim or cause of action upon relief can be granted, and that the suit should be dismissed. In addition, the City of Hopkins argues that they do not meet the definition of “Employer” required in Missouri law because it is not a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has six or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding year. In addition, the city alleges the petition failed to establish that they were a Public Employer under Missouri law.
In addition, the city argues that Phipps had to allege facts to support each essential element of the cause to be pleaded, and that mere conclusory allegations and/or bare legal principles are not adequate pleadings under Missouri law. In fact, the city argues, the case is subject to dismissal because the plaintiff failed to establish supporting facts in support of his suit.
The city argues that at all relevant times, it had less than six employees and is therefore not an employer as defined by Missouri law.
A related suit has been filed in Nodaway County Circuit Court by former clerk Krystal Judd-Bowen alleging discrimination, retaliation, termination due to her gender and the fact she was pregnant, and violation of the Missouri Whistleblower law. The city filed a similar answer denying all the allegations and a similar motion to dismiss.