EAST ST. LOUIS — A former Cypress Elementary School custodian and military veteran claims he was fired for expressing his opinion on the district’s policy allowing athletes to kneel during the National Anthem.
James Baker filed a complaint July 16 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against Cypress Illinois School District #64, alleging retaliation and violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The suit was filed through attorney D. Wes Sullenger of The Sullenger Law Office PLLC in Paducah, Ken.
Cypress Elementary School
According to Baker’s complaint, he worked as a custodian/maintenance employee at Cypress Elementary School for seven years, including working as head custodian for four years, until he was terminated on June 30. While employed at the school in 2019, there was a rise in professional athletes kneeling during the National Anthem before games as a controversial form of social protest, the suit states. As the protests spread to lower-level athletes, Superintendent Kimberly Shoemaker created a policy allowing athletes from visiting schools to refrain from standing for the National Anthem when competing on Cypress School District property.
Baker, who is a military veteran, claims he “sees kneeling during the National Anthem as disrespectful to the flag and the nation.” Baker lives across the street from Cypress Elementary School and placed a series of signs along the road on his personal property that read, “If you don’t believe in standing for the National Anthem, you can turn around and go home.” The suit states that every bus drives past his yard when traveling to and from the school, meaning all athletes would see the signs in his yard.
“Mr. Baker placed the signs in his yard because he wanted to express his opinion on a matter of public concern in a manner in which it would come to the attention of the public,” the suit states.
Shoemaker allegedly told Baker that the signs offended her. Baker responded that they expressed his opinion, and he refused to remove them. Following the conversation, Baker claims the mayor of Cypress told him that Shoemaker called and asked that he remove the signs from the plaintiff’s yard. The mayor said he could not remove the signs, the suit states.
In response, Baker claims Shoemaker began giving him a hard time by nitpicking at his work in hopes of forcing him to quit or to engage in terminable misbehavior.
Baker claims Shoemaker directed staff at a meeting to interact with the students. However, she then accused him of “stealing time” by interacting with the kids while performing his job. Specifically, he alleges she falsely accused him of spending several minutes per day visiting with his grandkids, “though he did not interact with his grandkids any more than he did with any other children, if at all.”
Baker claims Shoemaker also accused him of taking unauthorized breaks and demanded that he change his work hours. Then she allegedly complained about him working the extra hours.
Baker also alleges Shoemaker falsely represented that the school district was paying Baker $2,000 less than his agreed annual salary in order to pay the difference to the state retirement fund, but then failed to put the money in the fund.
“On multiple occasions, Superintendent Shoemaker directed Mr. Baker in the details of how to do his job then became angry when he explained to her that her methods would not successfully complete the assigned tasks,” the suit states.
“When Mr. Baker failed to quit his job after Superintendent Shoemaker’s pressure campaign against him, on or about March 16, 2021, Superintendent Shoemaker asked the local school board to terminate Mr. Baker’s employment by not renewing his annual employment contract based on her false claims of misconduct,” it adds.
The school board allegedly accepted Shoemaker’s false claims of misconduct and voted not to renew Baker’s employment contract without providing him an opportunity to respond.
Baker claims Shoemaker admitted after the meeting that she sought his termination because of the signs in his yard.
As a result, Baker claims he suffered lost wages as well as emotional distress, emotional pain, inconvenience, mental anguish, and other non-pecuniary losses.
Baker alleges he is entitled to his First Amendment rights to express his opinion on matters of public concern “in ways that do not significantly impede the essential functions of the governmental entity.”
“Defendant’s disapproval of the content of Mr. Baker’s speech was a motivating factor in defendant’s non-renewal of his employment contract and termination of his employment,” the suit states. “Defendant was deliberately indifferent to the rights of Mr. Baker in its adverse actions toward him.”
Baker seeks unspecified damages for lost compensation, emotional distress, pain and suffering, embarrassment, and humiliation. He also seeks punitive damages, interest, court costs and attorney’s fees.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois Benton Division case number 3:21-CV-821