Bourbon County and four individuals have filed their formal response to former county IT director Shane Walker’s federal lawsuit, and the answer narrows what the case is actually about. On the basic sequence of events, the two sides now largely agree. What remains in dispute is why Shane Walker lost his county job — and whether the officials can be held legally responsible for it.
The defendants (the Board of County Commissioners plus Commissioners Sam Tran, Mika Milburn-Kee and David Beerbower, and contractor Dr. Steve Cohen) filed their answer June 23 in U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Document 13), represented by Andrew D. Holder of Fisher, Patterson, Sayler & Smith. They answered the complaint rather than moving to dismiss it, on a deadline the clerk had extended to that date. For the claims Shane Walker raised, see our earlier report: Federal Lawsuit Alleging Retaliation, Discrimination, and FMLA Violations.
Where the parties now agree
The answer admits key dates and events in the timeline Walker laid out, even as it denies the bulk of his broader allegations. The county admits that he worked for the county from about December 15, 2005 until he left the payroll on or around July 9, 2025; that the commission’s vote to eliminate his position was unanimous and that the county outsourced the IT department; and that the elected Register of Deeds rehired him around November 17, 2025. It admits that Walker is married to Susan Walker, the current County Clerk and former CFO, and that he filed discrimination complaints with the Kansas Human Rights Commission in September 2024 and September 2025. It also admits the episode in which Commissioner Milburn-Kee asked for passwords, Walker and a coworker refused, and the coworker called police and was later fired.
Where they diverge
The agreement stops at motive. Walker’s complaint casts the elimination of his job as retaliation for those discrimination complaints and for taking medical leave. The county’s answer reframes the same event as a layoff. The county repeatedly “denies that Plaintiff was ‘terminated,’” admitting only that he was “laid off,” and it states that any action it took “was not retaliatory, and would have occurred based on legitimate, lawful, and independent reasons regardless of Plaintiff’s protected conduct, if any.” The county also denies Walker’s allegations about how he was treated after he was rehired.
The word choice carries legal weight. Walker pairs the retaliation claims with a breach-of-contract count and a Kansas Wage Payment Act claim; by calling the move a layoff and arguing it “substantially performed” and later “modified” his employment agreement, the county contests whether any contract was broken or wages withheld.
Beyond the facts, the county’s answer also raises legal defenses that, if accepted, could dispose of parts of the case before a jury weighs the question of motive. The individual defendants assert qualified immunity against the federal civil-rights (Section 1983) claims. The county claims governmental immunity under the Kansas Tort Claims Act. And the answer asserts that punitive damages cannot be recovered against a municipality. On Shane Walker’s free-speech claims, the county invokes Garcetti v. Ceballos, arguing his speech was made as part of his official duties and is therefore not protected. In all, the answer lists 23 defenses and asks that the defendants be dismissed from the case.
Walker, represented by Wichita attorney Gaye B. Tibbets, has demanded a jury trial. The case is Walker v. Board of County Commissioners of Bourbon County, Kansas, et al., No. 6:26-cv-01057, before U.S. District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree. An answer is one side’s response; the complaint’s allegations and the county’s denials and defenses have not been tested in court. The county’s full answer is posted here.