Kim Gardner has perhaps not completely come to terms with the circumstances under which she left her job as St. Louis circuit attorney three years ago. At least that’s the conclusion you might draw after reviewing a deposition she gave in March, which was made public last week and represents the most extensive public commentary Gardner has made about her time as circuit attorney.
Gardner sat for the deposition in the Clayton offices of attorney Bevis Schock, as part of a lawsuit filed against her and her office by a white former employee of the Circuit Attorney’s Office who is accusing Gardner of racial discrimination. Becky Goetz claims that during a 2022 meeting about the office’s diversion program, a Black contract employee repeatedly called Goetz a “slave owner” and accused her of racism because she is white, while Gardner failed to intervene. Goetz claims in her lawsuit that when she complained about the treatment, she was fired.
Get a fresh take on the day’s top news
Subscribe to the St. Louis Daily newsletter for a smart, succinct guide to local news from award-winning journalists Sarah Fenske and Ryan Krull.
Gardner resigned from office in May 2023 as she faced a quo warranto effort to remove her by the state’s attorney general, a mass exodus of staff from her office, and increasing public backlash over the mishandling of cases. The final straw came in the form of revelations that amid all this chaos, she was pursuing a graduate nursing degree from Saint Louis University.
During the March deposition, Gardner was asked about her departure from the Circuit Attorney’s Office, and elided all the chaos that surrounded it to an almost comical degree.
“So under what circumstances did you leave [the] Circuit Attorney’s Office?” asked Schock’s partner, attorney Erich Vieth.
“I decided to resign,” Gardner replied.
“Okay. Tell me more about that.”
“I decided to resign.”
“Based on what?”
“Based on my decision to resign.”
“And what were the factors in your resignation?”
“There was no factors, other than I decided to resign.”
After that back and forth, Vieth asked if Gardner had been forced out. Gardner’s attorney objected. But Gardner conceded that had been the case.
When Vieth asked Gardner about who ran the office while she was attending nursing school, Gardner insisted, “I was not at nursing school, so that, that’s not true.”
“You weren’t attending school?” Vieth asked.
“I attended school,” said Gardner. “But I’m not going to say that somebody else ran the office.”
Gardner has kept a low profile in the past three years, making few—if any—public comments about her time in office or her chaotic exit from her post as the city’s so-called top cop. She is currently a nursing fellow at the University of California-Davis.
She said in the March deposition that after leaving the CAO she worked in private practice for a year or two. Asked what kind of work she did, she responded, “legal work.”
The majority of the questions put to Gardner were about Goetz’s performance and the meeting where she was allegedly called a “slave owner.” Gardner denied hearing that comment. She said that Goetz was fired for verifying information about a participant in the office’s diversion program, including that he was enrolled in school, despite Gardner explicitly saying that wasn’t necessary.
Gardner’s answers were often vague or evasive. For instance, Vieth asked Gardner, “In your opinion, is it ever appropriate for a person to criticize a co-employee based upon the color of one’s skin?”
Gardner replied, “I can’t speculate to that.”
She also said she couldn’t speculate on some finer points of policies at her former office.
Later, Gardner was asked, “Does every person have a right always to consult with an attorney?”
She responded: “I can’t speak to that.”
Schock told SLM on Friday he was limited in what he could say about the deposition, which was made public as part of filings by Gardner’s attorneys.
“She did answer questions, according to law. There were some objections, which is pretty common, but that’s about all I can or will say,” said Schock. “Except I will tell you that Ms. Goetz has a very strong case.”
Gardner’s deposition was made public as part of her attorney’s motion for summary judgment, which argues that Goetz was fired for “legitimate nondiscriminatory” reasons and that Gardner is entitled to qualified immunity on some of the claims against her. Schock said that he’d be making his filings in reply in the coming weeks.
