JEFFERSON CITY — The Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District has upheld a Cole Circuit Court decision dismissing a whistleblower lawsuit filed by the former chief clerk of the Missouri House of Representatives against the House.
In an opinion authored by Judge Lisa White Hardwick and joined by Chief Judge Anthony Rex Gabbert and Judge Thomas N. Chapman, the appellate court ruled that Dana Miller failed to state a valid whistleblower claim because she did not show that any supervisor or appointing authority took disciplinary action against her after she disclosed alleged prohibited activities.
Miller, who began her career with the House in 2001 and rose through the ranks to become chief clerk in 2019, filed her petition for damages on May 31, 2024, according to the Oct. 21 opinion filed in the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District.
Plocher
Miller alleged that after reporting what she believed to be violations of law, mismanagement and misuse of state resources by House Speaker Dean Plocher, she was subjected to retaliation and threats to her employment.
Her complaint centered on two primary issues: Plocher’s efforts to purchase a costly constituent management software called Fireside, and his alleged misuse of state reimbursement funds that had already been covered by his campaign account.
Miller objected to the proposed Fireside contract after learning that the Speaker’s office had been working directly with a lobbyist for FiscalNote, the company behind the software, according to the opinion.
Miller advised Plocher that the House’s existing system was sufficient, internally managed and compliant with state policy. She expressed concerns that Fireside was expensive, cloud-based and might allow improper access to constituent data.
She also warned that using state-purchased software for campaign purposes could violate election laws.
Despite Miller’s opposition, Plocher and his staff continued to push for the purchase.
Miller claimed she faced increasing pressure, including warnings from other lawmakers that the Speaker was angry about her refusal to proceed.
She sent a memo to members of the Administration and Accounts Committee outlining her objections and later emailed the entire House detailing her concerns. The committee ultimately voted in September 2023 to reject the Fireside purchase.
Miller also reported what she described as policy and possible campaign finance violations after discovering that Plocher sought reimbursement for a $1,199.60 plane ticket to Hawaii for a legislative conference that had already been paid for with campaign funds.
An internal investigation later revealed several instances of double reimbursements totaling more than $4,000, some of which were repaid by Plocher in October 2023.
Following these disclosures, Miller alleged that she faced retaliation.
She cited the termination of Plocher’s Chief of Staff, the resignation of the House’s General Counsel and attempts by Plocher and his new Chief of Staff, Rodney Jetton, to limit her authority and reorganize staff oversight.
Miller claimed that Jetton referred to a plan to “choke” her authority and that House leadership discussed taking a vote to remove her as Chief Clerk. She said she reported these incidents to the House Ethics Committee and the Human Resources Department as examples of ongoing retaliation.
Miller’s lawsuit accused the House, Plocher and Jetton of violating Missouri’s whistleblower protection statute. She alleged emotional distress, embarrassment and loss of enjoyment of life as a result of their actions.
The circuit court dismissed her claims with prejudice, finding that sovereign immunity applied and that Miller had not shown that she was disciplined by a supervisor or appointing authority.
On appeal, Miller argued that Plocher effectively acted as her supervisor, even if he lacked direct authority to remove her without a vote of the full House.
The appellate court disagreed, noting that under House rules, the Chief Clerk is an officer elected by the 163-member body and can be removed only by a majority vote. The court found that Plocher’s actions did not constitute formal disciplinary authority.
“Plocher’s apparent belief about the scope of his authority over Miller did not enlarge his authority beyond that granted in the House rules,” the opinion stated.
Because Miller failed to allege that a supervisor or appointing authority took disciplinary action against her, the court ruled that her petition did not meet the legal requirements for a whistleblower claim.
The judges affirmed the lower court’s decision to dismiss the case and denied Miller’s request for attorney fees.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District case number: WD87809
