Newly-unredacted documents name Kansas City police captain accused of timekeeping fraud
Newly unredacted court records obtained by The Kansas City Star identify the Police Department captain previously accused in a whistleblower lawsuit of improperly benefiting from timekeeping practices.
Former Sgt. Kathy Coots alleged in a lawsuit from 2025 that she faced retaliation after reporting widespread timekeeping irregularities. That also included the misuse of department resources and improper use of grant-funded positions by members of the Police Department’s Community Engagement Division and Youth Services Unit.
Coots was originally assigned to tighten timekeeping accountability after an earlier internal investigation found severe timekeeping violations in the Youth Services Unit, according to the complaint.
Portions of the court filings had been redacted, concealing the identities of some officers named in the complaint.
The unredacted records identify Corey Carlisle as the captain Coots alleged improperly received additional compensation by assigning himself extra paid days off, while also claiming overtime for the same shifts.
The names became public after attorneys for The Star filed a motion to intervene in the case, seeking access to records that had been filed with redactions.
“The information in this case should never have been hidden in the first place,” said The Star’s executive editor, Andale Gross. “The accusations in this case involved public tax dollars, the police officials concerned are public employees, and the information was set down in public lawsuits. The Star will always defend the public’s right to know and that’s what we did here.”
KCPD lawsuit alleged fraudulent timekeeping
According to the lawsuit, Coots discovered the alleged discrepancies in 2024 while entering time records after Carlisle became assistant division commander over the Youth Services Unit.
In its unredacted answer, the Board of Police Commissioners denied the allegations against Carlisle.
“BOPCKC is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 46 and therefore denies the same,” the filing said.
The newly public filings also identify Maj. Kari Thompson as the major who had worked off-duty assignments while still collecting regular shift pay. The Star previously reported Thompson as being in the suit due to employment history that made her identifiable.
The lawsuit also alleged Thompson retaliated against Coots after she reported concerns about timekeeping practices, including by locking her inside a kitchenette in November 2024.
The board’s response to the filing denied allegations that Thompson improperly benefited from timekeeping practices and denied allegations that Thompson retaliated against Coots.
The answer also confirmed several personnel moves described in the complaint.
Carlisle did not respond to requests for comment on the allegations.
Kansas City Police Department spokesperson Capt. Jacob Becchina said Missouri law prohibits any public comment on specific personnel matters or actions alleged in plaintiffs petitions.
“It’s important to note, the nature of litigation is for plaintiffs to present pleadings with as many avenues for relief as possible. It should be noted, the allegations made at the start of a case are often only part of the story,” Becchina said. “When it comes to settlements in litigation, we seek to balance the interests of the community and the Department, among other factors.”
Police opposition to naming employee
Sheryl Ferguson, an organizer with It’s Time 4 Justice, said that the lawsuit speaks to the broader problem in the Police Department surrounding resources and its managment.
“A waste of resources, whether it be in somebody funding an extra hour and a half of overtime, or $50,000 to make you go away," Ferguson said. “If you’re going to do an overview of how money is spent, you take a look at the full picture. You don’t find a whistleblower and just act on them. You review the entire process of everything that we have."
The unredacted answer acknowledged that Thompson transferred to South Patrol on Dec. 15, 2024, and that Carlisle transferred to North Patrol on Feb. 2, 2025, but denied that those transfers resulted from the misconduct alleged by Coots.
Attorneys representing the police board argued against releasing the unredacted court records, saying that publicly identifying employees named in the complaint could unfairly damage the reputations of people who had not been found to have engaged in wrongdoing.
“BOPCKC stands by its decision to protect its employees’ privacy throughout this litigation,” attorneys later wrote after withdrawing their effort to maintain portions of the record under seal.
“Even if honestly believed, the ‘factual’ allegations may be rooted in speculation or rumor,” the filing states. “The end result is that allegations put forth at the outset of a case live on in perpetuity without redress for the tangentially involved individuals named in the pleadings.”
In the motion to intervene, attorneys for The Star argued that the redactions were unconstitutional and that the case should be unsealed.
“Sgt. Coots has leveled serious accusations against other members of the Police Department, including members of the Command Staff,” the motion to intervene said. “This is not a case in which a pro se plaintiff is slinging wild accusations. Moreover, the accusations which Sgt. Coots has made relate to matters of unquestioned public interest.”
The lawsuit was later resolved through mediation. Under the settlement agreement, the board agreed to pay $210,000, with roughly half going to Coots and the remainder covering attorney fees. The agreement said it should not be interpreted as an admission of wrongdoing and resolved the case without findings on the underlying allegations.
As part of the settlement, Coots was required to submit her retirement by May 1, which the agreement stipulated was to begin no later than Dec. 31. She was placed on paid leave on April 14 and will remain there until her retirement.
