The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled on a significant case involving public employee immunity under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA). The case, Gasser v. Coffey, No. 25-1316, centers on allegations of defamation and other tort claims against Sheryl Coffey, the Human Resources Manager for the Town of Castle Rock, by former employee Matthew Gasser. The court's decision clarifies the standards for determining whether a public employee's conduct can be considered willful and wanton, which would waive their immunity from liability.

In the ruling, filed on November 10, 2026, the court affirmed the lower court's decision to deny Coffey's motion to dismiss the claims against her. The court found that Gasser had adequately alleged that Coffey acted with conscious disregard for the risks posed by her statements about him, which he claimed were false and defamatory. This ruling is significant as it impacts how public employees can be held accountable for their actions in the course of their duties.

Background

The dispute began when Gasser, who worked as a Senior Athletics Supervisor for Castle Rock, was investigated by Coffey and the Town's Police Department for alleged misconduct involving financial fraud. A forensic accounting firm, FORVIS, was hired to investigate claims that Gasser was manipulating procurement-card receipts. The investigation ultimately cleared Gasser of any wrongdoing, but Coffey later authored a termination letter accusing him of serious misconduct, including financial fraud and inappropriate behavior.

Gasser alleged that Coffey's actions were motivated by personal animus and embarrassment over the costly investigation. He claimed that Coffey's termination letter contained false statements that harmed his reputation. Following the investigation, Gasser filed a civil action in Colorado state court, asserting claims of defamation, tortious interference with contract, and First Amendment retaliation against the Town. The case was removed to federal court, where Coffey sought to dismiss the claims against her based on CGIA immunity.

The Ruling

The Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision, which had denied Coffey's motion to dismiss. The court examined whether the standard for willful and wanton conduct under the CGIA required a conscious disregard of physical danger to the plaintiff. The district court had concluded that such a standard was not necessary, and the Tenth Circuit agreed.

The court stated, "We therefore conclude that the CSC would hold that the willful-and-wanton-conduct standard under the CGIA does not require a conscious disregard of a risk of physical danger."

The ruling emphasized that the CGIA does not limit the definition of willful and wanton conduct to situations involving physical harm. Instead, it allows for claims involving non-physical injuries, such as reputational harm from defamatory statements. The court noted that Gasser had sufficiently alleged that Coffey acted with reckless disregard for the consequences of her actions, thus overcoming her claim to immunity.

Impact

This ruling has important implications for public employees and the limits of their immunity under the CGIA. By affirming that willful and wanton conduct can encompass non-physical injuries, the court opens the door for individuals to hold public employees accountable for harmful actions that do not necessarily involve physical danger. This decision may encourage more individuals to pursue claims against public employees for defamation and other torts, potentially leading to increased scrutiny of public officials' conduct.

Additionally, the ruling clarifies the standards that courts will apply when evaluating claims of immunity under the CGIA. It establishes that allegations of reputational harm can be sufficient to demonstrate willful and wanton conduct, which could significantly impact how similar cases are litigated in the future.

What's Next

While Coffey's appeal was denied, the case may still proceed to trial where the merits of Gasser's claims will be fully examined. It is unclear if Coffey will seek further appeal options, but the ruling does not preclude her from continuing to contest the allegations in court. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for future cases involving public employee immunity and the standards for willful and wanton conduct.