St. Paul Police Chief Axel Henry has sued Mayor Kaohly Her for sexual harassment and retaliation, alleging crude workplace conduct a city probe called offensive but refused to label as harassment.
Henry filed a 73-page lawsuit against the Democratic mayor of St. Paul, Minnesota, after the city released a summary of its own misconduct probe less than a week earlier. That summary found Her “engaged in offensive and inappropriate behavior” yet concluded the conduct did not amount to sexual harassment or retaliation.
The chief’s complaint details a months-long pattern of alleged comments, physical contact, photoshopped images, and text messages. It also claims her administration launched a campaign to discredit him once he reported it. The New York Post reported the filing and the city’s earlier findings.
Her is St. Paul’s first female mayor. The lawsuit puts her leadership under direct legal challenge from the city’s top cop just months into her term.
Henry filed a formal complaint with the city attorney on April 1. He alleged Her sent “inappropriate, and indeed, unlawful text messages” to city staffers, including one referencing a “good weinering.”
The city opened a misconduct probe. Its summary of findings, released shortly before the suit, used careful language. Officials said Her’s actions were offensive and inappropriate. They did not substantiate sexual harassment or retaliation against any city employee.
Mayor’s spokesperson Matt Wagenius stated the position plainly.
Wagenius said, “An independent investigation did not substantiate claims of sexual harassment or retaliation against any city employee.”
"The Mayor will continue to lead Saint Paul and follow the recommendations of the report."
The city also declined further comment on pending litigation. Henry’s suit demands the full investigation report, not the summary the city wrote about itself.
The complaint walks through specific episodes spanning late 2025 into spring 2026. It starts at the police department gym.
Beginning in November 2025, Her allegedly began appearing daily while Henry worked out. The suit claims she made grunting and moaning noises that at least five officers heard. She also allegedly called officers “beefy.”
In January 2026, the lawsuit says, she photoshopped the faces of Henry and other department members onto images of boy bands, UFC fighters, and bodybuilders with prominent bulges. Those pictures were printed, placed in gold frames, and hung in department hallways where staff and civilians could see them. She also allegedly pasted her own headshot over command portraits, awards, and SWAT retirement plaques.
Two officers remarked that their wives would be offended if they saw the doctored image. Henry’s long-time partner found the photograph “offensive and utterly inappropriate,” according to the complaint. The suit describes the images as “the pictures of their leadership being mocked and sexualized.”
On February 6, 2026, while Henry was on vacation time with a sergeant at an X Golf location, Her allegedly tracked his calendar and showed up uninvited. The complaint says she told them she “had to come like this because you guys wouldn’t invite me.” She left after about 20 minutes.
The most widely quoted exchange allegedly occurred on February 19, 2026, at a Police Academy graduation. Henry and Deputy Chief Tim Flynn were present with the mayor.
According to the suit, Her looked at Flynn’s ribbon bar and asked, “Why is Tim’s bigger?” Henry interpreted her facial expression as sexual innuendo about penis size. She then asked about an “MFF” ribbon. After an explanation, she allegedly replied, “Oh, I thought it said MILF so maybe I could get one.”
On March 18, 2026, during a police department budget meeting, the complaint alleges Her sat next to Henry and placed her hand on his upper thigh twice without consent. The second time, her fingers extended toward his groin.
Henry’s filing states he understood the career risk of accusing the mayor. The complaint puts it this way:
"[Henry] knew that accusing the Mayor of St. Paul of sexual harassment could jeopardize his career. He reported it anyway. He did so because he recognized the seriousness of the misconduct, the vulnerability of those subjected to it, and the likelihood that the conduct would continue if no one spoke up."
The suit then describes what followed his report.
"But instead of accountability, the retaliation began. Rather than confront Mayor Her’s misconduct, her administration, and those acting at her direction, embarked on a campaign to retaliate against and discredit Chief Henry."
Henry seeks a jury trial. He asks for damages covering lost wages and benefits, emotional distress, humiliation, and harm to reputation, plus release of the complete investigative file.
Henry’s attorney, Chris Madel, addressed the decision to sue. He spoke to local reporters after the filing.
"Axel Henry is an honorable man and a dedicated public servant. He didn’t come forward for attention or advantage, he came forward because what happened was wrong and needed to be reported."
Madel drew a sharp line between the city’s self-produced summary and open court.
"We look forward to proving our allegations in a court of law, where all evidence, not some sanitized summary written by the City about itself, can finally be heard."
That contrast is now the core dispute. The city says an independent investigation cleared Her of harassment and retaliation. Henry’s complaint says the same conduct was serious enough to report, that it continued across gym visits, hallways, a graduation ceremony, a golf outing, a budget meeting, and staff texts, and that speaking up triggered professional payback.
No arrests have been reported. The mayor’s office maintains she will keep leading the city and follow the recommendations already issued. Henry’s lawsuit asks a jury to decide whether “offensive and inappropriate” was the full story, or the version city hall preferred to publish about its own mayor.
When a city investigates its top elected official and hands the public a summary that admits bad behavior while denying the legal labels, the officer who still has to work in that building is right to demand the full record under oath.
