A federal appeals court has allowed Matthew Gasser’s lawsuit against Castle Rock human-resources manager Sheryl Coffey to proceed past her bid for immunity. The Denver Gazette reported that the Tenth Circuit concluded Gasser plausibly alleged Coffey consciously disregarded the harm that could result from false accusations in a proposed termination letter. The federal docket identifies the case as Gasser v. Coffey, et al., against Coffey and the Town of Castle Rock.
The ruling is about immunity, not whether the allegations are true
Gasser, a town athletics supervisor, alleges that Coffey made false accusations of financial wrongdoing and sought his termination after a 2023 town investigation. Coffey argued that the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act protected her from state-law claims because, she contended, “willful and wanton” conduct must involve a risk to physical safety. The Gazette’s account of the appeal says the panel rejected that reading, concluding Colorado law likely does not require a risk of physical danger for conduct to meet that standard.
The decision does not establish that Coffey defamed Gasser or that the town retaliated against him for protected speech. It addresses whether the immunity argument justified ending the relevant claims at this stage; the allegations and the merits of the remaining claims are still for further proceedings. The district-court record is available through the federal docket.
A separate public-employee case offers limited context
The same appeals court has considered other public-employee disputes, but their claims and procedural questions differ. In a separate Colorado case, the Tenth Circuit’s September 10, 2024 opinion described former Douglas County School District athletics director Corey McNellis’s First Amendment retaliation claim over staff emails about a school performance. The court reversed dismissal of his discrimination claims under federal and state law but otherwise affirmed the district court; that case did not address Gasser’s immunity issue. The McNellis opinion is therefore a limited comparison, not evidence that Gasser’s allegations have been proven or that the two cases share the same legal outcome.
