A longtime Kansas City police sergeant says he was abruptly removed from a supervisory post just days before starting the job, an act he alleges in a lawsuit was retaliation for reporting racial and age discrimination within the department.

The lawsuit, filed in Jackson County Circuit Court on Jan. 30, alleges that department officials retaliated against Sgt. Nathaniel Green, after he filed complaints alleging discrimination.

Green, who is Black and been with the Police Department for nearly two decades, filed complaints with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights in 2025 and 2026 alleging discrimination, according to court records. His attorney, EmmaLee Wilson, said the case is intended to bring accountability within the department.

“Change comes slow at these institutions, but my client is hopeful that his case will be a force for change and accountability in his department,” Wilson said.

Police Department officials declined to comment, saying that their policy is to refrain from public comment in fairness to all parties.

Frequent insubordination

Green said he had applied and been assigned to a desk sergeant position in the East Patrol Division in February 2025, but just days before he was set to take on the role, he was told that he would no longer be working in the new position, according to the filing.

The lawsuit claims that while Green was serving as sergeant, he frequently dealt with insubordination from fellow officers, as well as leadership who would go around his commands.

Just after being accepted into the new position as desk sergeant, Green reviewed footage from the body-cameras of two officers who violated radio and patrol policies. The officers failed to tell a police dispatcher where they were and failed to follow the proper steps required for a “self-initiated activity.”

The lawsuit said Green met with the two officers and told them about their policy violations and offered to review the video with them, but they both declined. Another sergeant was present in the meeting to serve as a witness.

Following the meeting, Green was reprimanded by a captain for failing to review the video with the officers.

“Plaintiff corrected him and stated that Plaintiff had offered to view the video with both officers and directed him to the neutral witness who had also attended the meeting and agreed Plaintiff had offered to show the videos to the officers during the Instructional meeting, and they refused,” the lawsuit reads.

Green was then told to hold the meetings again and have the officers review the body-worn camera video.

In March, Green arrived at a disturbance call involving East Patrol Division officers and told officers to hold their position and wait for K-9 support before advancing.

The lawsuit claims that the direction was openly questioned over the radio by fellow officers and not followed by some on scene. An off-duty supervisor also began directing officers and bypassing Green’s orders.

No action was taken by the department against the officers who did not follow the commands.

Days after the incident on scene, Green was informed by a captain that he would no longer be working in the desk sergeant position following his complaints to the captain about his treatment by fellow officers.

Green took sick leave due to work-related stress and was told that he would need to provide a doctor’s note upon his return. Green submitted the doctor’s note and, days later, filed a formal complaint with the department’s human resources unit.

“In the complaint, Plaintiff documented the cumulative challenges Plaintiff had experienced since Plaintiff’s promotion to sergeant,” the lawsuit reads. “Plaintiff also reported that over the last several months, there were multiple incidents in which another field supervisor had inserted themselves into situations that Plaintiff was already managing, without any prior communication or coordination.”

That complaint was ultimately filed as being unsubstantiated by department officials, according to the petition. He was then told he would need to start using department doctors for his ailments, because his doctor had listed them as being work-related.

Green was told in a meeting with human resources officials that his time off had raised concerns amongst leadership, according to the lawsuit. Green ultimately requested to be moved from the East Patrol Division, but that request was denied by the human resources unit.

In April, Green was given a performance improvement plan during a second quarter evaluation meeting, despite a record of positive performance evaluations throughout his career, including during the first quarter evaluation, according to the lawsuit.

Those reviews were given before any of the complaints Green had made to the Police Department regarding the behaviors of other officers.

Green was then called into another meeting where the performance improvement plan was shortened to a two-month window. When Green said he would not sign the document, he was placed on administrative leave.

While on leave, Green was not allowed to have his firearm, was not allowed to work off-duty jobs that required him to wear his uniform and would not receive holiday pay while out, according to the filing.

“Although the letter stated that the assignment was administrative in nature, the restrictions imposed - including the removal of law enforcement authority and loss of pay-related benefits - reflected a clear change in status and function,” the filing reads.

The petition said several other officers, including some who are white, were not under similar conditions while under investigation by the department or the prosecutor’s office.

The lawsuit seeks a jury trial and damages, including back pay, attorney’s fees and other relief.

This story was originally published February 5, 2026 at 3:49 PM.

Read more at: https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article314588748.html#storylink=cpy