Kansas City Police Captain Wins $10.8 Million Judgment in Discrimination Case
In a stunning turn of events, a Jackson County jury awarded a whopping $10.8 million on Tuesday to a Kansas City police captain, bringing to light serious allegations of discrimination and retaliation within the Kansas City Police Department (KCPD). This verdict marks a significant step in the ongoing conversation about transparency and accountability in law enforcement agencies.
The Background Story
Jim Swoboda, a white police captain, took a bold stand when he testified on behalf of his former supervisee, Scott Wells, a Black officer, during a discrimination case against the KCPD back in 2015. Wells had claimed that fellow officers discriminated against him and made racist remarks while criticizing him about his diabetes. Swoboda felt that the treatment Wells received was wrong, and he wasn’t afraid to say so, even when faced with potential backlash.
Fast forward to 2023, and the Jackson County jury found in favor of Swoboda on both counts he charged: retaliation and discrimination. They awarded him a staggering $9.6 million in punitive damages, along with an additional $1.2 million to cover legal fees and lost wages stemming from his lawsuit filed in 2019.
What Happened After the Testimony?
After Swoboda bravely testified at Wells’ trial, he says he became a target himself. The department allegedly stripped him of his gun and police car and placed him in a limited duty role for three months. Swoboda reported that he felt surveilled by his fellow officers, which only compounded his ordeal. Despite reporting these concerns to the KCPD’s human resources department, he found no resolution and no internal investigation was launched.
Swoboda claimed that he faced significant retaliation after his supportive testimony, which was noted by the jury. His attorney, Katherine Myers, expressed hope that this case could pave the way for positive changes in the police department. “We hope that this case has a positive impact on ensuring transparency in policing, not just for employees, but for the community as a whole,” she said. “This verdict sends a strong message that retaliation and discrimination will not be tolerated.”
The Response from Officials
While immediate comments from the Kansas City Police Department remained elusive, their spokesperson did mention they were weighing their options regarding the jury’s verdict. Interestingly, current KCPD Chief Stacey Graves was aware of Swoboda’s concerns regarding illicit surveillance but reportedly took no action to investigate. This situation stirs even more questions about the internal culture and accountability within the KCPD.
Swoboda’s Journey Through Discrimination
Swoboda’s lawsuit goes further, alleging disability discrimination. After returning from medical leave in December 2018, he found himself relegated to sorting officers’ coats instead of being reinstated fully to his duties. His legal team argues that this is indicative of a broader culture of abuse within the department.
Emma Wilson, another attorney representing Swoboda, pointed to this as a systemic issue, “That hospitalization led to them essentially abusing their ability to keep him off work,” she said. “And this isn’t an isolated incident.”
A Step Toward Transparency?
Ultimately, the jury’s verdict holds a mirror to the KCPD’s treatment of officers who dare to speak out against wrongdoing. The jury’s decision could be a signal to the department that accountability is not only desirable but necessary. Some current officers who testified on Swoboda’s behalf are already experiencing their own retaliatory issues, suggesting that fear and suppression may still lurk within the department.
Rarely does a legal ruling draw such scrutiny, raising the stakes for how police departments treat their own officers. This case, strongly centered on ethical duties and whistleblower protections, aims to inspire change not just at the KCPD but perhaps across law enforcement agencies everywhere. As the community watches intently, it becomes clear that transparency and justice can no longer be optional—they are essential.
