Plaintiff Ankeneth Corbin sued the Black Jack Fire Protection District and David Calhoun in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, raising claims of retaliation under the First Amendment, Section 1981, and state law, as well as age discrimination. Before the court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
Corbin, who is African American, served as Fire Chief for the Black Jack Fire Protection District from 2015 until his termination in January 2023. After filing several internal complaints and EEOC charges alleging discrimination and retaliation, Corbin installed a hidden camera in his office in August 2022. The camera captured Board Chairman Calhoun in Corbin’s office, where Board members’ mailboxes were also located. After discovering the recordings, the Board suspended Corbin in December 2022 and terminated him in January 2023, citing the hidden camera and alleged failure to return District equipment.
Legal Analysis
Analytical Framework
Notably, the court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to analyze Corbin’s First Amendment retaliation claim rather than the traditional Pickering-Connick balancing test. This approach bypassed the threshold questions of whether Corbin spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern and whether his speech interests outweighed the department’s operational interests.
First Amendment Retaliation
Applying the Title VII McDonnell Douglass framework, the court found sufficient evidence to deny summary judgment. The court identified direct evidence including Calhoun’s statements about Corbin “destroying the department” with his charges and circumstantial evidence such as the timing of events and lack of any workplace camera policy. The court never addressed whether Corbin’s complaints constituted protected speech under Pickering or its progeny.
State Law Retaliation: The court found genuine issues regarding pretext based on Calhoun’s confrontational statements, the evolution of the Board’s position on the camera (from initial acceptance to grounds for termination), and disputes about equipment return.
Section 1981 Retaliation: The court applied McDonnell Douglas to this claim, finding sufficient evidence of pretext to survive summary judgment based on shifting explanations for termination.
Age Discrimination: The court granted summary judgment, finding Calhoun’s retirement inquiries reasonable and a single remark by district counsel insufficient to support the claim.
The court granted summary judgment on the age discrimination claim but denied summary judgment on all retaliation claims, notably applying Title VII’s McDonnell Douglas framework across the board without distinguishing between statutory and constitutional analyses.
Schrag on Law 