Topeka (Kansas) Police Department
There are lawsuits that expose real wrongdoing. There are lawsuits that correct a legitimate injustice. There are also lawsuits that may technically produce a result in court while leaving an agency, its officers, and the public worse off.
This is one of those cases I struggle with.
The federal case involving Colleen Stuart, Jana Harden, Jennifer Cross, the City of Topeka, and Chief Bryan Wheeles started as a broad discrimination case. By the time the case reached trial, it had been narrowed significantly. Jennifer Cross’s claims did not go to the jury. The jury ultimately found in favor of Colleen Stuart and Jana Harden on sex-discrimination claims against the City of Topeka. The verdict form shows Stuart was awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, $35,277.58 in back pay, and $42,593.67 in front pay. Harden was awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, $11,059.20 in back pay, and $0 in front pay.
That is the legal result. It happened. A jury heard the evidence and made its decision.
But a court verdict is not the only question that matters inside a police department.
The question I keep coming back to is this:
Was this good for the department, good for the officers, or good for public safety?
From where I sit, and from what many line officers tend to believe in cases like this, the answer is no.
The Dumpster Photo Raises a Bigger Question
One of the most troubling pieces of this story is not a legal argument. It is practical. It is basic police common sense.
Photos show what appears to be discarded police-uniform-related items in a dumpster. The concern is that police identifiers, uniform items, or hat-badge-style items were not properly secured or destroyed. The dumpster was reportedly sitting on or near a public sidewalk/street area in downtown Topeka.
That matters.
Police uniforms and identifiers are not ordinary trash. They are public-trust items. If someone can pull uniform pieces or police-identifying items out of a dumpster, that creates an obvious risk: impersonation, access, intimidation, and confusion during a real emergency.
Even if someone wants to argue over exactly what remained attached or removed, the public-safety question does not go away. Why was anything that looked like police identification left unsecured in a public-access dumpster at all?
Officers understand this instinctively. The public may not always know the details, but cops do. You do not casually discard police-identifying gear where anyone can get it. That is not a paperwork issue. That is officer safety and public safety.
This Looks Like a Department Being Pulled Into Internal Politics
The case records show this lawsuit was originally much broader than the final verdict. The City later argued that three plaintiffs brought nine causes of action against two defendants, but only two causes of action produced a jury verdict. The City characterized that as a 22% success rate.
The City also argued that the plaintiffs’ attorneys were seeking $915,162.50 in fees for work that included failed claims, pre-suit work, administrative work, redundant or block-billed work, and work allegedly related to Jennifer Cross’s separate lawsuit.
That does not erase the jury verdict. But it does raise a fair public question:
How much money, time, attention, and command energy was burned on litigation that appears to have grown far beyond the claims that actually survived?
Police departments are not private corporations with unlimited resources. Every hour spent fighting internal lawsuits is an hour not spent fixing staffing, training, supervision, morale, equipment, retention, or street-level service.
And line officers feel that. They feel it when command staff gets consumed with litigation. They feel it when promotions become legal battlegrounds. They feel it when every internal decision starts being filtered through fear, retaliation claims, grievances, and political survival.
Winning Money Is Not the Same as Building Morale
There is also a difference between proving a legal claim and improving a department.
A lawsuit can result in money. It can embarrass leadership. It can pressure command staff. It can create headlines. It can even help someone’s career or public profile.
But does it make the department healthier?
Does it make officers trust the process more?
Does it improve the promotional system?
Does it help the next generation of officers believe that leadership is fair, honest, and focused on the mission?
Or does it teach everyone that the department is now a legal chessboard where careers, grievances, and public narratives matter more than patrol, investigations, officer safety, and public service?
Those are fair questions.
The Attorney Fee Fight Makes the Public-Cost Issue Hard to Ignore
The fee dispute is another reason this case deserves scrutiny. The City stated that it spent $244,056 in fees and $1,202.24 in expenses defending the case through November 7, 2024, while plaintiffs’ counsel sought more than $915,000 in attorney fees.
The City argued the request should be reduced dramatically, down to $303,887.50 before applying a success-rate reduction, and then to $66,855.25 based on the City’s 22% success-rate argument.
The court did not reduce it that far, but the court did award far less than requested: $279,852.50 instead of $915,162.50. The court criticized issues including duplication, block billing, and problems with the billing records.
That is not a small side issue. That is taxpayer money. That is public money. That is money that could have gone toward training, retention, equipment, staffing, or community safety.
My Concern
My concern is not that officers should never sue. Sometimes lawsuits are necessary. Sometimes they are the only tool left when leadership fails.
My concern is that some cases become less about fixing a department and more about pressure, promotion, ego, and leverage.
When police-identifying items are allegedly left unsecured in a public dumpster, that is not leadership. When internal disputes spiral into years of litigation, massive legal bills, and fractured command trust, that is not morale-building. When line officers watch the department get dragged through court while basic officer-safety issues appear overlooked, they notice.
And many of them come to the same conclusion:
This was not good for the department.
This was not good for the officers.
This was not good for morale.
A jury decided the legal claims in front of it. That part is settled unless changed on appeal.
But the bigger leadership question remains open:
Who actually benefited from this — the officers, the department, the public, or only the people playing the promotion-and-litigation game?
Thank you for taking the time to share this!
After reviewing this information, along with some additional information I’ve come across, it’s difficult not to see this as a deeply concerning situation. The Topeka Police Department was once well regarded both within the community and among neighboring agencies. Unfortunately, recent lawsuits and related issues appear to have negatively impacted that reputation. Just as concerning is the effect these matters may be having internally, where morale seems to have declined significantly.
I’d also like to add a few points that may not have been reflected in the court filings:
C. Stuart – I feel as though she’s absolutely worthless as a police officer. I guess those who were deposed forgot to mention that perhaps she wasn’t promoted because she hasn’t garnered the respect of the officers of the agency. Heck, some don’t even know who she is. In the entirety of her career, I’d guess she has a total of less than three years on the street. It also failed to mention that she didn’t make the initial cut to get promoted to Captain but the Chief at the time was told that he had to promote a female; hence her promotion over more qualified candidates. This coupled with the fact that the officers had no respect for her so by promoting her, there was a level of insulation between her and the troops.
J. Harden – what has she done in her career? I’ve been told that if she’s buddies with you, you are golden; if not, too bad. I’ve also come to understand that she can’t seem to get her work done in a timely manner. It’s pathetic when others get disciplined for not getting their work done as prescribed by policy but she doesn’t.
I’m not sure where to begin with this last one. I feel that J. Cross has done more to set the agency back a decade or more than any other employee in recent past. Some examples include, but are certainly not limited to:
I have heard that more than a handful of employees have left the TPD because of her lack of leadership and unprofessional behavior. Retention being the issue that it is in law enforcement, how is this acceptable for a member of command staff?
She’s told several officers over the years that she’ll do whatever it takes to get ahead and doesn’t care who she steps on in the process.
She secretly records fellow employees against agency policy – and has never been disciplined for it.
She conveniently leaves out important information when sharing things upstream to make others look bad, when in fact, that same information might make her appear to have egg on her face. Chicken Little anyone?
As I understand things, she claims to be discriminated against because she’s a female but has regularly gotten away with actions that had a male officer done them, he’d have been disciplined, or worse. If a male officer is overly promiscuous toward a bunch of female officers, I’d be willing to bet it would be an HR issue. But as I understand it, she on the other hand, has regularly gotten away with it.
It seems she’s the most toxic member of the Command Staff, and likely the agency. Until she leaves the agency, I doubt working conditions will improve.