IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST.

LOUIS COUNTY
STATE OF MISSOURI

RAY RICE )
)
and )
)
JAMES MORGAN, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Case No.
)
ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI, )
)
Serve: Genevieve Frank, County Clerk )
41 S. Central Ave., 1st Floor )
Clayton, MO 63105 )
)
Defendant. ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PETITION FOR DAMAGES

COME NOW Plaintiffs Ray Rice and James Morgan, by and through counsel, and for their

Petition for Damages against Defendant St. Louis County, Missouri, state and allege as follows:

Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue

1. Plaintiff Ray Rice is an African American resident of Wentzville, Missouri.

2. Plaintiff James Morgan is an African American resident of St. Peters, Missouri.

3. Defendant St. Louis County, Missouri, is a body corporate and politic operating

under a charter form of government. Pursuant to Section 1.010 of the St. Louis County Charter,

Defendant “may sue and be sued as a county as authorized by law.”

4. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant has been an “employer” within the

meaning of the Missouri Human Rights Act (“MHRA”), Mo. Rev. Stat. § 213.010(8), in that it is

a political subdivision of the State of Missouri.

5. Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. § 213.111, in that the
unlawful discriminatory practices alleged in this action were committed in St. Louis County,

Missouri.

General Factual Allegations

6. The St. Louis County Police Department has five different divisions: the Division

of Patrol, the Division of Criminal Investigations, the Division of Special Operations, the Division

of Operational Support, and the Division of Human Resources. Other than the Division of Human

Resources, a Lieutenant Colonel (“Lt. Col.”) oversees each division.

7. The head of each division of the St. Louis County Police Department reports to the

Deputy Chief of Police who, in turn, reports to the Chief of Police.

8. At all times relevant to this action, Jon Belmar (Caucasian) served as the Chief of

Police for the St. Louis County Police Department and Lt. Col. Kenneth Gregory (African

American) served as the Deputy Chief of Police.

9. Plaintiff Rice has been employed by Defendant as a police officer in the St. Louis

County Police Department from 1996 to the present. Since 2015, Plaintiff Rice has held the rank

of Lieutenant.

10. Plaintiff Morgan has been employed by Defendant as a police officer in the St.

Louis County Police Department from 2002 to the present. Since 2017, Plaintiff Morgan has held

the rank of Lieutenant.

11. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiffs performed the duties and

responsibilities of their jobs in a satisfactory manner.

12. During their employment with Defendant, Plaintiffs have been actively involved

with the Ethical Society of Police (“ESOP”). ESOP was founded in 1972 by African American

police officers to address race discrimination within the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department.

2
In 2018, the St. Louis County Chapter of ESOP was established.

13. Plaintiff Morgan has served as the President of the St. Louis County Chapter of

ESOP, and Plaintiff Rice has served as the Community Liaison and Chapter Administrator for the

St. Louis County Chapter of ESOP.

14. As part of their involvement with ESOP, Plaintiffs repeatedly raised concerns to

Chief Belmar about systemic racism in the St. Louis County Police Department and opposed and

objected to specific discriminatory acts directed toward African American police officers.

15. In or about January 2018, the St. Louis County Police Department created a new

unit called the Special Response Unit (“SRU”), which is part of the Division of Special Operations.

The SRU is responsible for targeted enforcement of street level crimes and persistent offenders

and focuses on community policing to prevent and deter criminal activity.

16. Plaintiff Rice was appointed as the inaugural Commander of the SRU. In that role,

Plaintiff Rice created the infrastructure for the SRU and was involved in selecting police officers

to work in the SRU. The SRU began operating in June 2018 and was the most racially and gender

identity diverse unit in the St. Louis County Police Department.

17. The SRU had an outstanding track record during Plaintiff Rice’s tenure as the

Commander of the SRU. In 2019, for example, the officers in the SRU made 358 felony arrests

and 94 misdemeanor arrests, seized 99 guns, had 54 federal case adoptions, and spent 257 hours

meeting and building relationships with members of the community. During that year, the SRU

received only one citizen complaint.

18. On June 17, 2019, Plaintiff Morgan filed a charge of discrimination against

Defendant with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the Missouri

Commission on Human Rights (“MCHR”).

3
 19. In his charge of discrimination, Plaintiff Morgan alleged that Defendant

discriminated against him because of his race and retaliated against him by transferring him from

the Central County Precinct to the City of Wildwood Precinct effective January 27, 2019, due to

alleged inappropriate conduct that Defendant knew Plaintiff Morgan did not engage in.

20. Effective April 7, 2019, Defendant returned Plaintiff Morgan to his previous

assignment as Watch Commander at the Central County Precinct without any explanation.

21. After returning Plaintiff Morgan to the Central County Precinct, Defendant

assigned Sergeant William Muller to work on Plaintiff Morgan’s shift. Sergeant Muller had

previously faced multiple charges and accusations of workplace harassment and other misconduct

during his employment with Defendant, and one of Sergeant Muller’s supervisors had

recommended that he be terminated.

22. In mid-December 2019, Lt. Col. Troy Doyle (African American), who was the

Commander of the Division of Special Operations, informed Chief Belmar that he would like to

transfer Plaintiff Morgan from his assignment as Watch Commander at the Central County

Precinct to be the Commander of the Tactical Operations Unit, which is part of the Division of

Special Operations.

23. Shortly after Lt. Col. Doyle informed Chief Belmar of his desire to transfer Plaintiff

Morgan to the Tactical Operations Unit, Chief Belmar announced that all transfers would be

suspended.

24. On January 10, 2020, Chief Belmar issued an order, effective January 12, 2020,

transferring Lt. Col. Doyle from the Division of Special Operations to the Division of Operational

Support and transferring Lt. Col. Jeffrey Bader (Caucasian) from the Division of Operational

Support to the Division of Special Operations.

4
 25. The Division of Special Operations is considered to be more prestigious than the

Division of Operational Support.

26. Chief Belmar’s decision to transfer Lt. Col. Doyle and Lt. Col. Bader was a

deviation from the Police Department’s standard procedures because the Department normally

transferred the Lieutenant Colonels who oversaw each division at the same time. Chief Belmar did

not transfer the Lieutenant Colonels who oversaw the Division of Patrol and the Division of

Criminal Investigations.

27. In his order of January 10, 2020, Chief Belmar also assigned Lieutenant Jeremy

Romo (Caucasian) to be the Commander of the Tactical Operations Unit instead of Plaintiff

Morgan. Upon information and belief, Lt. Col. Bader was involved in the decision to assign

Lieutenant Romo to be the Commander of the Tactical Operations Unit.

28. The decision to not select Plaintiff Morgan to be the Commander of the Tactical

Operations Unit was a deviation from the Police Department’s standard procedures because the

Department normally transferred the Lieutenant who was recommended by his Lieutenant Colonel

to be the Commander of the Tactical Operations Unit. Defendant’s failure to select Plaintiff

Morgan to be the Commander of the Tactical Operations Unit will adversely affect Plaintiff

Morgan’s ability to receive promotions in the future.

29. Immediately prior to transferring to the Tactical Operations Unit, Lieutenant Romo

served as a Watch Commander at the West County Precinct.

30. At the same time that Defendant transferred Lieutenant Romo to the Tactical

Operations Unit, Defendant transferred Plaintiff Rice from the SRU to the West County Precinct,

where he replaced Lieutenant Romo as Watch Commander. Defendant did not give Plaintiff Rice

any explanation for removing him from the SRU.

5
 31. Prior to Plaintiff Rice’s removal from the SRU, the standard practice in the St.

Louis County Police Department was that a Lieutenant was never removed from a specialized unit

unless he or she requested a transfer or promotion or was being disciplined.

32. Plaintiff Rice did not request a transfer out of the SRU or a promotion and there

was no basis for any disciplinary action against him.

33. Plaintiff Rice’s removal from the SRU and transfer to the West County Precinct

constituted a demotion for Plaintiff Rice and will adversely affect his ability to receive promotions

in the future.

34. Defendant replaced Plaintiff Rice as Commander of the SRU with Lieutenant Steve

Hampton (Caucasian). Lieutenant Hampton had previously served as the Director of the St. Louis

County and Municipal Police Academy. During Lieutenant Hampton’s tenure as the Director of

the Police Academy, several cadets and employees had complained about racial harassment and/or

a hostile environment based on race.

35. At the same time that Defendant transferred Plaintiff Rice to the West County

Precinct, Defendant also transferred Lieutenant Juan Gomez to the West County Precinct. Plaintiff

Rice had more seniority than Lieutenant Gomez.

36. Even though Defendant’s standard practice was to give the officer with more

seniority the more desirable shift, Defendant placed Plaintiff Rice on the midnight shift and placed

Lieutenant Gomez on the day shift.

37. Plaintiff Rice asked then-Captain Mary Barton (Caucasian), who had just become

the Commander of the West County Precinct, whether he could move to the day shift. Captain

Barton told Plaintiff Rice that it was not her decision, even though the Commander of a precinct

typically has the authority to make those types of decisions.

6
 Count I – Claims of Race Discrimination and Retaliation by Plaintiff Rice

38. Plaintiff Rice’s race and/or his opposition to Defendant’s discriminatory acts

directed toward African American police officers were the motivating factors in Defendant’s

decisions to remove Plaintiff Rice from the SRU, to transfer Plaintiff Rice to the West County

Precinct, and to place Plaintiff Rice on the midnight shift at the West County Precinct.

39. Defendant’s actions toward Plaintiff Rice, as described herein, constitute

discrimination because of race, in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 213.055, and retaliation for Plaintiff

Rice’s opposition to Defendant’s discriminatory practices, in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 213.070.

40. Defendant’s actions toward Plaintiff Rice, as described herein, are part of a pattern

of racially discriminatory decisions and actions within the St. Louis County Police Department.

41. On April 1, 2020, Plaintiff Rice filed a charge of discrimination with the Missouri

Commission on Human Rights (“MCHR”), charge number FE-4/20-31820, alleging

discrimination based on race and retaliation.

42. On September 29, 2020, the MCHR issued a Notice of Right to Sue to Plaintiff

Rice for charge number FE-4/20-31820, allowing him to bring this action against Defendant.

43. Plaintiff Rice has filed this action against Defendant within 90 days of the issuance

of the Notice of Right to Sue and within two years of the discriminatory and retaliatory actions

alleged herein.

44. As a result of Defendant’s actions as alleged herein, Plaintiff Rice has suffered

emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish and suffering, and loss of

enjoyment of life.

45. As a further result of Defendant’s actions as alleged herein, Plaintiff Rice has

incurred and will continue to incur attorneys’ fees and costs of litigation.

7
 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Rice prays that the Court, after trial by jury, enter judgment in his

favor and against Defendant, in amounts to be determined at trial, for compensatory damages,

including damages for emotional distress; for injunctive relief to prohibit Defendant from engaging

in further discriminatory and retaliatory employment practices; for attorneys’ fees and costs of

litigation; and for such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Count II – Claims of Race Discrimination and Retaliation by Plaintiff Morgan

46. Plaintiff Morgan’s race and/or his opposition to Defendant’s discriminatory acts

directed toward African American police officers, including the charge of discrimination that

Plaintiff Morgan filed against Defendant on June 17, 2019, were the motivating factors in

Defendant’s decision to assign Sergeant Muller to work on Plaintiff Morgan’s shift at the Central

County Precinct and Defendant’s failure to transfer Plaintiff Morgan to be the Commander of the

Tactical Operations Unit.

47. Defendant’s actions toward Plaintiff Morgan, as described herein, constitute

discrimination because of race, in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 213.055, and retaliation for

Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s discriminatory practices, in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. §

213.070.

48. Defendant’s actions toward Plaintiff Morgan, as described herein, are part of a

pattern of racially discriminatory decisions and actions within the St. Louis County Police

Department.

49. On March 3, 2020, Plaintiff Morgan filed a charge of discrimination with the

Missouri Commission on Human Rights (“MCHR”), charge number FE-3/20-31721, alleging

discrimination based on race and retaliation.

50. On August 31, 2020, 2020, the MCHR issued a Notice of Right to Sue to Plaintiff

8
Morgan for charge number FE-3/20-31721, allowing him to bring this action against Defendant.

51. Plaintiff Morgan has filed this action against Defendant within 90 days of the

issuance of the Notice of Right to Sue and within two years of the discriminatory and retaliatory

actions alleged herein.

52. As a result of Defendant’s actions as alleged herein, Plaintiff Morgan has suffered

emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish and suffering, and loss of

enjoyment of life.

53. As a further result of Defendant’s actions as alleged herein, Plaintiff Morgan has

incurred and will continue to incur attorneys’ fees and costs of litigation.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Morgan prays that the Court, after trial by jury, enter judgment in

his favor and against Defendant, in amounts to be determined at trial, for compensatory damages,

including damages for emotional distress; for injunctive relief to prohibit Defendant from engaging

in further discriminatory and retaliatory employment practices; for attorneys’ fees and costs of

litigation; and for such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

DOBSON, BERNS & RICH, LLP

By: /s/ Jerome J. Dobson

Jerome J. Dobson, #32099
jdobson@dbrstl.com
Gregory A. Rich, #45825
grich@dbrstl.com
Adam D. Rosenberg, #72375
arosenberg@dbrstl.com
5017 Washington Place, Suite 300
St. Louis, MO 63108
Tel: (314) 621-8363
Fax: (314) 621-8366

Attorneys for Plaintiff

9
10