Justly Prudent files federal civil rights lawsuit against Maryland Department of Natural Resources for destroying career of agency's highest-ranking Black officer

Robert Kersey Jr. gave 30 years to the Maryland Natural Resources Police. He rose through the ranks to become Deputy Superintendent (the second-highest position in a 258-member state law enforcement agency) and only the third African American to hold that role in the agency's 153-year history. His supervisor rated him "Outstanding" in every category. He had never faced a single disciplinary action.

Then he stood up against racism—and lost everything.

On March 31, 2026, Justly Prudent filed a federal civil rights lawsuit on behalf of Mr. Kersey in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, former NRP Superintendent Adrian Baker, Corporal Veronica Bruns, and Sergeant Murray Hunt.

The complaint describes a coordinated scheme by agency officials to fabricate a disciplinary case against Mr. Kersey, stall the investigation for over eight months, and ultimately force him out of the position he had earned—all in retaliation for his public opposition to racially inflammatory remarks and his advocacy on behalf of minority officers.

The Spark: Standing Up against Discriminatory Testimony

According to the complaint, the trouble began on March 8, 2022, when Corporal Bruns testified before the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee and publicly stated that minority officers "do less on the written portion of the test," suggesting that the most qualified candidates for promotion were not minorities.

Mr. Kersey, acting in his capacity as Deputy Superintendent and as a member of the NRP Black Officers' Association, directly confronted those remarks. On March 21, 2022, he sent a memorandum cancelling a scheduled labor-management meeting, citing Bruns's comments as offensive and disparaging to minority officers. His supervisor, Superintendent Baker, saw the memorandum and did not object.

Three months later, the retaliation began.

The Anonymous Complaint that Violated Federal Law

On June 27, 2022—just three days before Mr. Kersey was scheduled to begin a mandatory administrative break required for his reappointment—an anonymous letter containing ten fabricated accusations was submitted to NRP's Internal Affairs Unit.

The complaint describes this anonymous letter as a direct violation of a permanent federal consent decree that governs NRP's disciplinary process. That consent decree was entered by a federal court in 1996 after the NRP Black Officers' Association filed two separate lawsuits against DNR over systematic racial discrimination against Black officers. One of the consent decree's central requirements is explicit: anonymous complaints cannot be used as the basis for investigating NRP officers. This protection exists precisely because NRP had a documented history of weaponizing the disciplinary process against Black officers.

According to the complaint, Superintendent Baker knew the consent decree prohibited anonymous investigations yet approved the investigation anyway. He also bypassed NRP's own standard review process, which would have quickly revealed that the accusations were false. The complaint further describes how Baker was named in the same anonymous letter as Mr. Kersey, yet only Mr. Kersey—the Black officer—was investigated.

An Eight-Month Campaign to Run Out the Clock

The complaint describes how the investigation dragged on for more than eight months. According to the filing, multiple outside agencies declined to take the case because they recognized that investigating an anonymous complaint violated the consent decree. DNR eventually found one agency willing to handle it.

During those eight months, Mr. Kersey was stuck in limbo. The complaint states that his investigation was listed as "pending"—a status that effectively blacklisted him from the law enforcement community. No agency will hire a command-level officer with an open disciplinary case. Mr. Kersey applied for several high-level positions during this period and was turned away because of the unresolved investigation.

Meanwhile, according to the complaint, white officers facing their own disciplinary complaints received starkly different treatment. One white officer's complaint was resolved in eight days. Another white sergeant who was reported for making racial and sexist remarks—including comments that a Black lieutenant was promoted only "because he was black"—had every charge dismissed by Superintendent Baker within a month.

Complete Exoneration—Then Permanent Exile

When an independent investigator finally examined Mr. Kersey's case, the complaint describes a swift conclusion: every single accusation was closed, and the case was found to have no merit. The most serious charge(i.e., that Mr. Kersey had shielded a friend from an investigation) was described as "so over the top" because Mr. Kersey was actually the person who had directed the matter to Internal Affairs in the first place. He hadn't suppressed the investigation, he initiated it.

The complaint further states that the one witness who could have immediately disproven the central accusation—Acting Lieutenant Colonel Brian Rathgeb—was deliberately excluded from the investigation.

According to the complaint, the independent investigator found that the anonymous complaint was a deliberate attempt to prevent the return of a strong Black leader, and noted that the conduct was "reminiscent and almost identical to attacks that Black Command Staff officers within NRP experienced" in the prior lawsuits that led to the consent decree.

Despite this complete vindication, DNR never returned Mr. Kersey to the Deputy Superintendent position. He was forced into retirement. His law enforcement retirement credentials—which he was legally entitled to receive within 45 days of retirement—were withheld. After 30 years of service that created real adversaries in the field, Mr. Kersey was left without the legal ability to carry a firearm and badge as a retired officer.

The Federal Lawsuit

The lawsuit brings seven counts: (1) race-based discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act; (2) unlawful retaliation under Title VII; (3) race-based discrimination under the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act; (4) unlawful retaliation under Maryland's Fair Employment Practices Act; (5) violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (6) First Amendment retaliation under § 1983; and (7) conspiracy to deprive civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), the federal civil conspiracy statute originally enacted as part of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871.

Mr. Kersey is seeking, among other relief, compensatory and punitive damages, the issuance of his retirement credentials, the expungement of the fabricated investigation from his personnel file, and an order requiring DNR to train its personnel on the requirements of the consent decree.

"Mr. Kersey dedicated 30 years to protecting the people of Maryland. When he spoke out against racial discrimination within his own agency, officials conspired to destroy his career through a fabricated investigation that violated a federal court order specifically designed to prevent this exact kind of abuse," said Attorney Jordan D. Howlette, who represents Mr. Kersey. "This lawsuit seeks to hold every individual who participated in this scheme personally accountable."

The case is Robert Kersey, Jr. v. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, et al. (Case No. 1:26-cv-1435), filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.