A federal judge last month refused to dismiss a retaliation claim against the city of Florence, which was made by a former employee who alleged she was pushed out for reporting malfeasance and discrimination at the water treatment plant.

Sarah Glenn worked for the city for 1.5 years and was the only female employee at the plant. During her tenure, she reportedly spoke out on numerous occasions about being treated differently than male workers, about safety concerns within her department and about the alleged misuse of city resources by her supervisor, Brandon Harris.

Glenn filed suit against Florence for violations of state and federal civil rights law, and also for retaliating against her when she exercised her First Amendment right to speak out against public corruption.

The city moved to dismiss her First Amendment claim, arguing that as a government employee, the First Amendment did not protect her right to complain about issues that were fundamentally workplace disagreements, rather than matters of public concern.

On Oct. 23, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer denied Florence’s motion. He concluded Glenn’s allegations showed she was not speaking out just to address her own personal grievances.

“The content of Ms. Glenn’s speech involved disclosing potential illegal conduct by her supervisor, including Mr. Harris’ use of City equipment for his own benefit; misappropriation of City property; and authorization of excessive, no-bid repair expenditures,” Brimmer wrote.

According to Glenn’s lawsuit, she began working for the city in September 2020 at its water treatment plant, eventually becoming a small systems certified water plant operator. Over the course of her employment, she alleged:

• Her supervisor, Harris, used city equipment and materials for personal purposes

• Harris asked her to perform his personal work on city time

• Harris made a lewd gesture during a meeting

• She was treated less favorably than the male employees, including being assigned “menial” cleaning tasks, instead of higher-level operations work

Glenn complained to thencity manager Michael Patterson, to the state, to the mayor, and to the city council. She also raised safety concerns about other employees’ conduct.

In October 2021, the city placed her on leave because Glenn displayed the results of her clean drug test and criminal background check at the water treatment plant.

“Ms. Glenn posted this information to protect her reputation in response to false rumors and innuendo about her alleged drug use and mental health,” wrote her lawyer, David Lichtenstein.

In March 2022, the new city manager offered to reinstate Glenn to her position, while knowing her child care duties conflicted with the proposed schedule. Instead, Glenn ended her employment with the city.

Seeking only to dismiss Glenn’s claim that the city retaliated against her for exercising her First Amendment right to speak out against misconduct, the city insisted she had not satisfied the legal standard for a public employee to credibly claim a constitutional violation. Glenn’s speech, argued the city, related to her official duties, did not involve a matter of public concern and could have disrupted the city’s workplace.

“These are the types of internal grievances and workplace disruption that an employer has an interest in controlling,” wrote attorney Peter H. Doherty. “Allowing an employee, such as Plaintiff, to constitutionalize the behavior would further disrupt the efforts to maintain a fair workplace environment.”

Brimmer disagreed Glenn could not proceed with her retaliation claim, even as a public employee whose speech rights were more limited. In addition to finding Glenn’s allegations did not amount to personal grievances, he pointed out Glenn’s official duties did not involve speech about government wrongdoing.

“The amended complaint does not allege that the ordinary duties of a Small Systems Certified Water Plant Operator include reporting misappropriation of City property or authorization of excessive expenditures,” he wrote.

Since Brimmer’s order, the city’s motion for summary judgment is pending, in which Florence is asking Brimmer to resolve the First Amendment claim in its favor without a trial. The city is largely relying on the same arguments it put forward in its motion to dismiss.

The Cañon City Daily Record reported last year that Glenn’s lawsuit is one of four to be filed recently against the city of Florence. Two have settled for more than $300,000 in total. Multiple lawsuits involved alleged misconduct by Patterson, the former city manager to whom Glenn unsuccessfully complained.

Earlier this year, Patterson was sentenced for two misdemeanor offenses of harassment and providing alcohol to a minor.