Summary
Federal judge denied qualified immunity for former St. Louis officials in a First Amendment retaliation lawsuit.
Plaintiff Yitzchak Simon alleged city officials interfered with his employment after he advocated for unhoused individuals.
The court found disputed facts over whether Simon’s actions constituted protected speech.
Claims of retaliatory interference and due process violations will proceed toward trial.
A plaintiff sufficiently alleged that that he engaged in constitutionally protected activity and that two city officials retaliated against him and unreasonably interfered with his employment in response, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri ruled on April 24, denying the defendants’ motion for immunity.
Yitzchak Simon sued former St. Louis Mayor Tishaura Oneda Jones and former Director of the Department of Human Services Yusef Scoggin, alleging that they interfered with his employment in retaliation for his exercise of his First Amendment rights, and engaged in tortious interference with his employment relationship.
Simon was employed by St. Patrick’s Center (SPC), an arm of Catholic Charities that provides housing, employment and healthcare services to the underserved in the St. Louis community. Most of SPC’s budget is funded through governmental grants.
A longtime advocate for the unhoused in St. Louis, Simon was an outreach worker who provided supplies and shelter assistance to the unhoused.
In March 2023, the SPC outreach team became aware that the city planned to evict a tent community of unhoused individuals via social media. The SPC team, including Simon, went to the encampment to help the unhoused individuals.
Scoggin wrote an email characterizing the team’s efforts as counterproductive and accused Simon of “unprofessional behavior.”
On the second day of the eviction, Simon had the day off of work but received a call from an unhoused person that it was continuing. He went to the location and tried to assist the unhoused.
A city worker later complained that Simon blocked his access to an unhoused person and was telling people they did not have to leave the encampment. The city worker took photographs of Simon to show his interference; he also testified that one picture showed Simon giving him the middle finger and that Simon used a racial slur.
Upon further questioning, the city worker admitted that the picture showed Simon using a two-finger peace sign; Simon denied using the slur and testified that the worker said to him, “I’m going to get you fired.”
After several calls and emails between city workers to Scoggin and Jones, who complained to SPC, SPC decided to fire Simon. Testimony from SPC workers was that the decision was based on the allegations from city workers.
Simon sued and the defendants moved for qualified immunity.
U.S. District Court Judge Catherine D. Perry denied the motion.
The qualified immunity analysis involves two inquiries, the court explained: whether there was a violation of a constitutional right and whether that right was clearly established at the time of the violation.
“At all times relevant to Simon’s allegations, the law was clearly established that a government official may not retaliate against an individual for this exercise of his First Amendment right to free speech by inducing another to take adverse action against him on account of such speech where the adverse action would not have otherwise occurred,” the court wrote. “Likewise, the law was clearly established that because an at-will employee has a right enforceable in law against third parties who unlawfully interfere with his employment relation, that employee’s right to continue in employment is sufficient to give him a constitutional cause of action challenging state action that compelled his employer to fire him.”
A “careful look” at the record showed substantial disputes of material fact as to the speech and conduct that Simon engaged in at the eviction, and whether his conduct — actual or perceived — constituted protected activity, the court found.
The defendants argued that Simon testified to “standing around” during the eviction, an activity that is not constitutionally protected. But while Simon did testify to “a lot of standing” around when he first arrived, he also discussed actions and comments that, if proven at trial, would constitute protected activity, including explaining rights to the unhoused and telling them they were not required to do what the city officials were telling them to do.
Disputed facts also remained as to whether Simon directed racial slurs or obscene gestures toward city officials at the encampment, as Simon denied the conduct.
“[A]lthough there are numerous genuine issues of material fact regarding Simon’s conduct and the nature of his statements made at and during the decommissioning of the [encampment], as well as defendants’ perception of such, viewing the evidence most favorably to Simon shows that he engaged in clearly established protected conduct under the First Amendment and, further, that the conduct that defendants perceived he engaged in, including making racial statements, also constituted clearly established First Amendment activity,” the court said.
The court also found disputes of material facts relating to the truthfulness of the defendants’ representations about Simon’s conduct and whether their retaliatory interference caused SPC to terminate Simon’s employment.
“Again, assuming the facts most favorably to Simon, defendants took actions to punish Simon for his exercise of First Amendment activity, and the punishment handed down would not have occurred but for defendants’ retaliatory actions,” the court wrote. “And because defendants’ interference with Simon’s employment was based on untruths, unverified allegations, and vindictive motives, as well as his constitutionally protected activity, that interference was unreasonable in violation of Simon’s right to due process.”
Considering Simon’s state law claim of tortious interference, the court again denied the defendants’ motion for immunity.
Genuine questions of material fact remained as to whether the defendants acted in bad faith or with malice, the court said: Scoggins with regard to representations made regarding Simon’s behavior during the eviction and Jones by intentionally and directly threatening SPC with a loss of city funding if it did not terminate Simon’s employment for engaging in constitutionally protected conduct.
The court denied the defendants’ motions for immunity.
St. Louis attorney Brandy B. Barth of Newton Barth, who represented Simon, did not respond to a request for comment.
Neither did Jay Hollman of the St. Louis City Counselor’s Office, who represented the defendants.
The case is Simon v. Jones, No. 4:23-CV-955-CDP.