KILLMER, LANE & NEWMAN, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW

1543 CHAMPA ST.  SUITE 400  THE ODD FELLOWS HALL  DENVER, CO 80202
303.571.1000  FAX: 303.571.1001  www.KLN-law.com
Darold W. Killmer
David A. Lane*+
Mari Newman*
Michael Fairhurst
Thomas Kelley°
Andrew McNultyˆ
August 10, 2020 Liana Gerstle Orshan
Reid Allison+
Helen Oh
VIA EMAIL

Thomas S. Rice Daniel Brotzman, Interim City Attorney

Eric Ziporin Nancy Rodgers, Deputy City Attorney, Civil
Jonathan N. Eddy Division
SGR, LLC Aurora City Attorney’s Office
3900 East Mexico Ave, Suite 700 15151 E. Alameda Parkway, Suite 5300
Denver, CO 80210 Aurora, CO 80012
trice@sgrllc.com nrodgers@auroragov.org
eziporin@sgrllc.com dbrotzman@auroragov.org
jeddy@sgrllc.com

Re: Minter, et al., on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Aurora, et al.

Dear Counsel:

As you may be aware, Mayor Mike Coffman improperly contacted Plaintiffs Lindsay
Minter and Pastor Thomas Mayes threatening to remove them from the Aurora Police
Department’s civilian Oversight Task Force if they did not drop their lawsuit against the City of
Aurora for its unconstitutional treatment of them and other protesters. Ms. Minter and Pastor
Mayes are both active members of their community who are committed to continuing their
participation in local government. They will not succumb to Aurora’s threats to remove them
from the APD Oversight Task Force – a task force that Ms. Minter was instrumental in
establishing through extensive work with Aurora City Council member Nicole Johnston.

The irony of Aurora’s obvious retaliation against Ms. Minter and Pastor Mayes for their
legally protected First Amendment activity in bringing a case against Aurora for its prior First
Amendment (and Excessive Force) violations can hardly be overstated.

Aurora, Through Mayor Coffman’s Actions, Has Violated Ms. Minter’s and Pastor Mayes’
First Amendment Rights.

The First Amendment protects “the right of the people . . . to petition the Government for
a redress of grievances.” U.S. Const. amend. I. As the Supreme Court has held, “the right to
petition is cut from the same cloth as the other guarantees of that Amendment, and is an
assurance of a particular freedom of expression.” McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479, 482 (1985);
________________________________________
*Also admitted to practice in California
+Also admitted to practice in New York
ˆAlso admitted to practice in Missouri
°Of Counsel
Thomas Rice, et al.
August 10, 2020
Page 2 of 3

United Mine Workers v. Illinois Bar Assoc., 389 U.S. 217, 222 (1967) (the right “to petition for a
redress of grievances [is] among the most precious of liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights”
and is “intimately connected . . . with the other First Amendment rights of free speech and free
press”). One aspect of the right to petition is “the right of access to the courts,” and the right to
petition for grievances may be exercised by filing a lawsuit and petitioning the courts for
relief. California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508, 510 (1972);
see Gagliardi v. Village of Pawling, 18 F.3d 188, 194-95 (2d Cir. 1994) (holding that the First
Amendment petition clause protects a public employee from being retaliated against for
exercising his right to petition for grievances by filing a lawsuit). It is clearly established that Ms.
Minter’s and Pastor Mayes’ filing of a lawsuit is First Amendment protected activity.
Additionally, Ms. Minter’s and Pastor Mayes’ lawsuit seeks to expose police misconduct and
brutality by the City of Aurora and is certainly petitioning activity that touches on an issue of
public concern. Therefore, their petitioning activity “occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy
of First Amendment values, and is entitled to special protection.” Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S.
443, 452 (2011).

Not only was Ms. Minter’s and Pastor Mayes’ filing of a lawsuit First Amendment
protected activity, but Mayor Coffman’s threats are actions that would certainly “chill a person
of ordinary firmness from continuing to . . . speak.” Scheffler v. Molin, 743 F.3d 619, 621 (8th
Cir. 2014). And, because “there is no justification for harassing people for exercising their
constitutional rights . . . [the chilling effect on future speech] need not be great in order to be
actionable.” Bart v. Telford, 677 F.2d 622, 625 (7th Cir. 1982). Simply put, threatening to kick
Ms. Minter and Pastor Mayes off the taskforce because they filed a lawsuit seeking to vindicate
their First Amendment rights is itself a blatant and egregious violation of the First Amendment.

Aurora, Through Mayor Coffman’s Action, Has Retaliated Against Ms. Minter and Pastor
Mayes In Violation Of Their First Amendment Rights.

“[A]ny form of official retaliation for exercising one’s freedom of speech, including
prosecution, threatened prosecution, bad faith investigation, and legal harassment, constitutes an
infringement of that freedom.” Worrell v. Henry, 219 F.3d 1197, 1212 (10th Cir. 2000). If “the
plaintiff was engaged in constitutionally protected activity[,]” “the defendant’s actions caused
the plaintiff to suffer an injury that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to
engage in that activity[,]” and “the defendant’s adverse action was substantially motivated as a
response to the plaintiff’s exercise of constitutionally protected conduct,” then retaliation in
violation of the First Amendment has been established. Id. at 1212. Circuit courts of appeal have
uniformly held that retaliation for exercise of one’s right to access of the courts constitutes a
violation under the Constitution. See, e.g., Soranno’s Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310 (9th
Cir. 1989); Harriso v. Springdale Water & Sewer Comm’n, 780 F.2d 1422 (8th Cir. 1986);
See Bradley v. Pittsburgh Bd. of Educ., 910 F.2d 1172, 1177 (3d Cir. 1990) (“An action that
would otherwise be permissible is unconstitutional if it is taken in retaliation for the exercise of
the right of access to the courts.”).

First, as demonstrated, supra, Ms. Minter and Pastor Mayes were engaged in First
Amendment protected activity when they filed their lawsuit against the City of Aurora.
Additionally, to establish the second element of a First Amendment retaliation claim, “a
Thomas Rice, et al.
August 10, 2020
Page 3 of 3

defendant’s conduct need not be egregious; petty harassment and ridicule, for example, may
suffice.” Bart, 677 F.2d at 625; see also Worrell, 219 F.3d at 1212 (holding that “any form of
official retaliation for exercising one’s freedom of speech, including … legal harassment,
constitutes an infringement of that freedom”) (emphasis added). Mayor Coffman’s threats
certainly meet this low bar. Third, Mayor Coffman made it explicit that his retaliation was based
on Ms. Minter’s and Pastor Mayes’ filing of a lawsuit; he threatened both of them with removal
from the taskforce if they didn’t drop their lawsuit. This sort of public-official-as-mobster
behavior is intolerable in a society with a First Amendment.

Aurora, Through Mayor Coffman’s Actions, Has Also Violated Ms. Minter’s and Pastor
Mayes’ Colorado Constitutional Rights.

The Colorado Constitution guarantees the right of the people to “apply to those invested
with the powers of government for redress of grievances, by petition or remonstrance.” Colo.
Const. Art. II, Section 24. The Colorado Supreme Court has consistently held that the Colorado
Constitution “guarantees greater protections of . . . rights… than is guaranteed by the First
Amendment.” Bock v. Westminster Mall Co., 819 P.2d 55, 58 (Colo. 1991); People v. Ford, 773
P.2d 1059, 1066 (Colo. 1989). Because, as outlined above, Mayor Coffman’s actions violate the
First Amendment, it necessarily follows that his actions also violated the Colorado Constitution’s
petition clause.

Should Aurora take any further retaliatory actions, we are prepared to bring additional
legal claims.