Kansas City, Kansas firefighters have filed suit claiming the Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kansas violated their First Amendment rights by prohibiting their union from discussing apparatus staffing and firefighter safety with elected officials.

KCK Professional Firefighters Association, IAFF Local 64 filed suit in US District Court for the District of Kansas naming the Unified Government and its Board of Commissioners as defendants. The suit alleges violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments under 42 USC § 1983.

According to the complaint, the dispute traces back to an August 2024 decision by the Board of Commissioners to adopt a revenue-neutral budget for 2025. Local 64 alleges that the budget reduced staffing on ladder trucks and other specialty apparatus from four firefighters to three.

Concerned that the reduction would continue beyond 2025, Local 64’s Executive Board wrote to the mayor and commissioners in July 2025. The letter raised concerns about apparatus staffing, shortages of turnout gear, access to annual cancer screenings, and conditions in the city’s fire stations.

On December 29, 2025, four Kansas City, Kansas firefighters were seriously injured during a structure fire. The complaint states that a subsequent National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health investigation identified inadequate apparatus staffing as a contributing factor.

Quoting the NIOSH report, the complaint states:

• NFPA 1750 states that both engine and truck companies should be staffed with a minimum of four on-duty personnel.

Although the revenue-neutral budget expired at the end of 2025, the complaint alleges the Unified Government did not restore four-person staffing to the affected apparatus.

On February 9, 2026, Local 64 President John Simma wrote to the Board of Commissioners expressing “serious concerns regarding permanent staffing reductions for fire trucks and rescue apparatus.”

President Simma subsequently asked to be placed on the agenda for the March 16 meeting of the Unified Government’s Public Works and Safety Standing Committee. He wanted to address the effect of the staffing decisions on firefighter and public safety. According to the complaint, he received no response.

The union’s Executive Board sent another letter to the mayor and commissioners on March 13, stating:

• Operating trucks and specialty companies with only three firefighters places unnecessary risk on both the firefighters and the people we serve.

The letter requested that four-firefighter staffing be restored immediately.

The complaint alleges that on April 7, Attorney Ryan Denk, acting on behalf of the Unified Government, directed the union to stop communicating with the mayor and commissioners. Attorney Denk cited a provision of the Kansas Public Employer-Employee Relations Act that prohibits a union from directly contacting members of a governing body “to discuss subjects under negotiation.”

According to the complaint, the union was not engaged in negotiations with the Unified Government or the fire department when it requested permission to address the committee. Attorney Denk reportedly warned that further direct communications with elected officials would be “unacceptable and susceptible to possible legal action.”

Counsel for Local 64 and the International Association of Fire Fighters responded that the communications did not violate the Kansas statute and were protected by the First Amendment.

Local 64 President Simma renewed the union’s request to appear before the Public Safety Committee on May 11. Three days later, Commissioner Andrew Kump, who chairs the committee, denied the request. The complaint quotes Commissioner Kump as citing the “risk of disclosing potentially privileged/private matters in a public meeting and the ongoing discussion between the Union and the UG.”

Local 64 alleges that members of the public are otherwise permitted to request agenda items, speak on matters within the committee’s jurisdiction, submit written comments, and communicate directly with elected officials.

The suit asserts two causes of action. The first alleges that the Unified Government’s prohibition and threat of legal action constitute an unconstitutional prior restraint on the speech of Local 64 and its members.

The second alleges that excluding the union from Public Safety Committee meetings constitutes content-based discrimination. Local 64 contends it was denied access because of the proposed subject of its comments and because its members were speaking collectively through a labor union.

Local 64 is asking the court to declare the Unified Government’s policy unconstitutional and prohibit the Unified Government and Board of Commissioners from enforcing it. Here is a copy of the complaint: