‘Not a Close Call’: Investigation Finds Likely Retaliation By Camden County Commissioner

An investigative report has found Camden County 2nd District Commissioner Steve Dougan engaged in sexually inappropriate communications with county employees and then, when his misconduct was reported, Dougan attempted to lay the groundwork to get at least one employee fired. Those actions, Attorney Jack Fleming with Vessell Bridges Murphy Law Offices said, would likely be considered retaliation by a judge and jury.

The investigation was requested by the Camden County Commission after employee complaints came before the commission in February. The report was sent to the commission this week, dated March 19.

Background

According to Fleming’s report, the series of events began on Dec. 19, 2025 with a text message sent by Dougan to a county employee (named “Complainant” in the report), in which Dougan reportedly tried to set up the employee on a date with one of his friends — a date which Fleming says the employee had not sought. In the text, Dougan reportedly wrote, “…I’ve heard from a few lady’s he’s been with he has stamina. TMI I could have been lied to also[,]” followed by crying-face and laughing-face emojis.

Then the report states that in January 2026, Dougan told the Complainant and another employee a story involving a strip club and a stripper with large breasts. The Complainant reported the text message and that story to their supervisor in late January; another employee reported similar concerns about Dougan to the same supervisor, around that time.

Dougan was counseled by another commissioner on Feb. 2, regarding the exchange, and the report says after that Dougan began a pattern of what could legally be considered retaliation against the Complainant for the legally protected act of making a sexual harassment complaint.

Retaliation

From the report: “After the February 2nd counseling session, [Dougan] began what could be perceived as a campaign of intimidation, hostility, and retaliation against the Complainant and her supervisor. Multiple attempts were made by [Dougan] to drum up claims of poor work performance and insubordination against Complainant’s supervisor. A judge or jury would likely find that the only logical explanation for the targeting of the legal department (Complainant and her supervisor) is that [Dougan] was attempting to intimidate and retaliate against the Complainant and her supervisor.”

The Complainant went to the county’s HR department, saying she believed she was being retaliated against. The same day the HR department shared that complaint with the commission, the Complainant’s supervisor was given a disciplinary write-up by Dougan for an issue that had not been raised before the Feb. 2 meeting. Dougan also reportedly mentioned the “three strike” policy to multiple employees.

The next day, the Complainant and her supervisor moved offices so they could be further away from Dougan, the report revealed.

Fleming pointed to other instances that would add to the pile of evidence of retaliation, including Dougan reportedly asking another commissioner to identify the boss of the Complainant and her supervisor. “A judge or jury would likely view this question by [Dougan] as trying to learn how and who could get Complainant and her supervisor fired or reprimanded.”

Then the report states, “Next, the accused Commissioner – during his interview as part of this investigation – told me that he wanted to move to the same office as the Complainant and her supervisor while the investigation was ongoing. Although the accused Commissioner identified other motivations for wanting to move offices, I do not believe that a judge or jury would find them credible. Any outside observer would see this as an attempt to intimidate and retaliate against Complainant and her supervisor during the ongoing investigation.” Later in the report, Fleming called this an “overt and blatant intimidation tactic.”

Fleming also said he had “legitimate concerns” that Dougan tried to influence even his own investigation “by intimidating — and possibly influencing — a Commission employee that was interviewed.” Fleming says while he was interviewing that employee, Dougan called the Commission office with an urgent message to call him immediately. “I do not find that to be a coincidence,” he wrote.

In all this, Fleming says Dougan expressed a “lack of remorse and understanding of the severity of his conduct (in sending the highly inappropriate text message and telling the strip club story to a female subordinate)[.]” He called this “troubling.”

Fleming ended the report this way (emphasis added by LakeExpo): “In conclusion, while it is a very close call whether a judge or jury would ultimately conclude that the text message and strip club story constitute actionable sexual harassment under Missouri law, the retaliation claim is not a close call. A judge or jury would likely find that the accused Commissioner retaliated against Complainant and her supervisor by creating an abusive, intimidating, and hostile work environment because Complainant reported the sexual harassment and her supervisor addressed it.”