There has been an inside joke around this case that Jennifer Cross kept throwing things against the wall to see what would stick.
After years of litigation, summary judgment, a jury verdict, appeals, attorney-fee exposure, a second lawsuit, and a last-minute settlement, the City of Topeka agreed to pay $1.025 million to fully resolve the claims involving Colleen Stuart, Jana Kizzar, and Jennifer Cross.
So yes. Apparently, some of it stuck.
The City’s governing body met in a virtual special session on May 1, 2026, went into executive session for legal advice, then returned to open session and voted unanimously to approve a settlement offer to fully resolve one or more lawsuits on a full and final basis.
The settlement agreement is now public, and the numbers are worth looking at.
Where the Money Goes
The agreement provides for a total gross settlement of $1,025,000.00.
According to the settlement terms, the money is divided as follows:
- $413,940.80 to the Law Offices of Mark A. Jess, doing business as Employee Rights Law Firm.
- $11,059.20 to Jana Kizzar as W-2 earnings, with ordinary payroll taxes and deductions withheld.
- $200,000.00 to Jana Kizzar, reported on a 1099-MISC.
- $200,000.00 to Colleen Stuart, reported on a 1099-MISC.
- $200,000.00 to Jennifer Cross, reported on a 1099-MISC.
That matters because the settlement was not simply three clean $200,000 checks and nothing else. The agreement includes a large attorney/law-firm payment, a small W-2 wage component for Kizzar, and separate 1099-MISC payments to each plaintiff.
In plain English, the W-2 amount is treated like wages and subject to ordinary payroll withholding. The 1099-MISC payments are reported differently, and the agreement makes clear that the City is not giving the plaintiffs tax advice or guaranteeing how the IRS or state tax authorities will treat the money.
So while the headline number is $1.025 million, the actual tax consequences and net amounts are not as simple as “everyone gets $200,000 tax-free.”
What This Settlement Resolved
This was not just one simple lawsuit.
The settlement agreement references multiple pieces of litigation, including:
- the original federal lawsuit filed by Stuart, Kizzar, and Cross;
- a second lawsuit filed by Cross;
- Cross’s appeal after her claims in the first case were dismissed on summary judgment;
- the City’s appeal after a jury verdict in favor of Stuart and Kizzar;
- and a later appeal involving attorney fees.
In the original case, Stuart and Kizzar went to trial. A jury returned verdicts in their favor: $200,000.00 for Stuart and $211,059.20 for Kizzar.
Cross’s claims in that first case were dismissed on summary judgment. But Cross appealed, then also filed a separate retaliation lawsuit. That second case was still part of the overall litigation picture when the City agreed to settle.
The agreement also references an attorney-fee award of $279,852.50 to Stuart and Kizzar.
So when Topeka approved a $1.025 million settlement, it was not just paying the original jury verdicts. It was buying an end to the verdict, the attorney-fee fight, the appeals, Cross’s separate case, and the continued risk and expense of litigation.
The Cross Piece
Jennifer Cross is where the “throw it against the wall” joke comes in.
Her claims in the first lawsuit did not survive summary judgment. She appealed. Then she filed a separate retaliation lawsuit.
That second case included allegations that, after the original complaints and litigation, Cross faced retaliation in the workplace. The alleged issues included promotion-related complaints, job assignments, investigations, exclusion or marginalization, damage to reputation and credibility, and claims that other employees or supervisors were allowed to disregard or undermine her authority.
Whether every one of those claims would have survived trial is something we will never know. The City settled before that happened.
But the final result is hard to ignore: Cross, whose claims in the first case had been dismissed, still received $200,000 as part of the global settlement.
That is not the same thing as saying Cross won at trial. She did not.
It is also not the same thing as saying Topeka admitted wrongdoing. The agreement specifically says the City denies liability, wrongdoing, and damages.
But settlements are not about moral victories. They are about risk, exposure, leverage, and finality.
And in this case, the City paid seven figures to end the fight.
No Admission, But Still a Cost
Like most settlements, this agreement includes a non-admission clause. The City does not admit liability. The plaintiffs release their claims. The parties walk away.
That is standard settlement language.
But standard language does not erase the public impact.
A jury already found in favor of Stuart and Kizzar. Attorney fees had already become a major issue. Appeals were pending. Cross had a separate case still alive. The City was facing continued legal costs and uncertainty.
At some point, the question for Topeka was not whether every claim was perfect. The question was how much more time, money, and risk the City wanted to pour into the fight.
The answer was $1.025 million.
Why This Matters
This is exactly the kind of case that damages morale inside a police department.
When officers and supervisors believe promotions, assignments, investigations, discipline, or internal treatment are unfair, that creates problems inside the agency long before a lawsuit is ever filed.
When those problems turn into federal litigation, jury verdicts, attorney-fee awards, appeals, and million-dollar settlements, it becomes more than an internal personnel dispute. It becomes a public trust issue.
The City can say it did not admit wrongdoing. That is true.
The plaintiffs can say they held the City accountable. That is also fair.
But the bigger issue is what this says about leadership, internal culture, and the cost of letting workplace problems become courthouse problems.
Line officers see this stuff. Supervisors see it. Command staff sees it. The public eventually sees it too.
And when the final bill hits seven figures, nobody gets to pretend it was just workplace drama.
Final Thought
Cross may have kept throwing claims against the wall.
Some were knocked down. Some were appealed. Some were refiled. Some were still headed toward trial.
But by the time Topeka settled, enough had stuck to cost the City $1.025 million.
For a police department, that is not just a lawsuit.
That is a morale killer.
Source Documents
The following records were provided by the City of Topeka in response to a Kansas Open Records Act request:
What a mess!
J. Cross needs to go! As others have pointed out, the toxicity surrounding her leadership has severely damaged morale within the agency. The bigger concern is the ongoing pattern of conflict and litigation that continues to follow her leadership style. At some point, people have to ask whether this environment is sustainable for the department or the officers working in it every day. Unfortunately, I fear no other employer will touch her with a ten foot pole! Aside from her running around with a case of obvious herpes on her upper lip, only God can judge us so I’m not judging, why would anyone want to employ this type of leader? I truly feel for the men and women of the TPD.
The City may have resolved the issue through a settlement, but the men and women of TPD still have to deal with the aftermath daily. Many employees continue working in what appears to be an increasingly toxic environment marked by poor leadership, division, and low morale.
It also raises questions about how well the Command Staff actually works together. It feels like there are competing factions within leadership, (Cross, Kizzar, Stuart and a couple cronies vs everyone else), rather than one unified team working toward the same goals. That kind of atmosphere makes it difficult for employees to feel supported or optimistic about the department’s future.
What makes this even more concerning is the department’s history of turnover in leadership positions. Chiefs in Topeka historically don’t stay long, and with additional leadership changes likely in the near future, internal promotions will soon become a major issue. Many people are worried that future promotions may be influenced more by politics and fear of additional lawsuits than by qualifications or merit. If that perception continues, confidence in leadership will only erode further.