Nestled alongside the Mississippi River in eastern Missouri sits the sprawling Midwestern city of St. Louis. Known for its Gateway Arch, barbeque, and blues music, St. Louis is a very old city but one with many modern conveniences and a strong business environment. Although overall crime in the city of nearly three million people has been declining each year, it still has one of the highest per capita murder rates in the United States. Despite this decrease in crime, for a city its size, having a strong police force is necessary. There are over 1,300 police officers patrolling the streets, fighting crime, helping citizens, and being the face of law and order.

However, a recent case has demonstrated that the diverse St. Louis Police Department may have discriminated against one of their own. Keith Wildhaber, a sergeant, had been with the department for 15 years. Starting as a patrolman, he worked his way up through the ranks from the street all the way to detective, achieving along the way a strong record of performance. Things were definitely going well for Wildhaber.

However, once he reached this point in his career, things began to change.(1)

His next promotion would be lieutenant, and he applied for this prestigious position, believing he would be a shoo-in.

He put in his application, letting the selection committee know he was interested, and detailed his years of experience on the police force. Among the 26 candidates for the job, he ranked third.(2) However, he was passed over for the promotion. This was not a major setback, as he felt there were a couple of candidates ahead of him. But soon he realized there was a pattern emerging. Over the next five years, he was passed up for a promotion a total of 23 times.

Clearly, this concerned Wildhaber.

Contacting a member of the county police board who oversees these kinds of issues, Wildhaber was told, “If you ever want to see a white shirt, you should tone down your gayness.”(3) The “white shirt” referred to the dress shirt a lieutenant wears while on the job. Wildhaber, openly homosexual, was suddenly facing a form of discrimination.

Allegedly, this was not the only instance of his sexual orientation being used against him. According to Wildhaber, he was told that he didn’t act like a typical heterosexual male—that his mannerisms tended to be more homosexual in nature. One supervisor told him that the Bible considers homosexuality an “abomination,” and still others called him

“fruity.”(4) After five years of stagnating in his position, he filed a formal complaint. Going to the Missouri Commission on Human Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EE OC), Wildhaber completed the necessary paperwork to have his case heard.

However, this was not the end to his problems. After filing his complaint, he was transferred by the department. Where he had been working a day shift very close to home, he now found himself working an overnight shift nearly 30 miles from his house. For Wildhaber, he felt this was not a coincidence.

He reasoned this was retaliation for filing the complaint with the EEOC and state commission. Once again, he filed another complaint—this one included the charge of retaliation.

Questions 1. Does this case pass the OUCH test? Explain.
2. I s sexual orientation a BFOQ for police work?
3. I s sexual orientation discrimination covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
4. What should the St. Louis Police Department do now to ensure a similar occurrence to this case does not happen again?
5. Do you think the damages awarded to Wildhaber—both actual and punitive—are appropriate? Why, or why not?