In an extremely rare Kansas state court discrimination case, Aaron Circle Bear sued the State of Kansas and the Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas, in the Wyandotte District Court raising claims of race, sex, and religious discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the Kansas Act Against Discrimination. The district court dismissed all claims, finding Circle Bear’s claims against the State were time-barred and the Unified Government was not his employer, and Circle Bear appealed to the Kansas Court of Appeals.
Factual Overview
Circle Bear worked in the Wyandotte County District Attorney’s Community Integrity Unit from January 2021 until he was fired four months later. He alleged discrimination based on being a Native American who follows ancestral religious practices and for being a gay man who does not conform to sex stereotypes. After filing discrimination charges with the EEOC and KHRC in September 2021, he received a right-to-sue letter on March 29, 2022.
On June 27, 2022, Circle Bear filed his initial lawsuit naming the District Attorney’s Office and Unified Government as defendants. After difficulties serving the District Attorney’s Office and subsequent motions to dismiss, the court allowed Circle Bear to amend his petition to name the State of Kansas as a defendant in December 2022. Both the State and Unified Government moved to dismiss the amended petition.
Legal Analysis
Timeliness of Claims Against the State: The court first addressed whether Circle Bear’s claims against the State were timely filed within Title VII’s 90-day window after receiving the right-to-sue letter. While Circle Bear filed his original petition on the 90th day, he did not properly name or serve the State until his amended petition nearly six months later. The court rejected Circle Bear’s arguments that his amended petition related back to the original filing date or that he could cure the service defects under Kansas procedural rules.
Joint Employer Status: The court next considered whether the Unified Government could be considered Circle Bear’s joint employer along with the State. Applying the joint-employer test from federal law, the court determined that Kansas statutes explicitly establish district attorney employees as state employees, not county employees. The court found this state law designation controlling and rejected Circle Bear’s argument that the Unified Government shared authority over his employment.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of all claims, finding that Circle Bear’s claims against the State were time-barred and the Unified Government could not be considered his employer as a matter of law.
Schrag on Law 