Mark Schoonover Lawsuit

Case: 1:22-cv-00767-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/26/22 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
MARK SCHOONOVER : Case No.

1385 Hartwood Drive :
Cincinnati, Ohio 45240 : Judge
:
Plaintiff, :
v. :
:
HAMILTON COUNTY, through the :
HAMILTON COUNTY BOARD :
OF COMMISSIONERS :
138 East Court Street, Room 603 :
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 :
:
and : COMPLAINT AND
: AND JURY DEMAND
CHARMAINE MCGUFFEY :
1000 Sycamore Street :
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 :
:
Defendants. :
INTRODUCTION
1. This is an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violation of
Plaintiff’s rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution. Plaintiff also asserts a state-law claim for retaliation under O.R.C. §
4112.02 (I) as enforced through O.R.C. § 4112.99
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. The jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331
as there is a federal question. The court has supplemental jurisdiction over the
state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
1
3. Venue is proper in this district as the named Defendants reside in
the Southern District of Ohio and/or all events at issue occurred in Hamilton
County, Ohio.
PARTIES
4. Plaintiff is a former employee of the Hamilton County Sheriff’s
Office.
5. Hamilton County is a political subdivision of the state of Ohio and is
amenable to suit through the Board of Commissioners pursuant to O.R.C. §
305.12. The Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office is a department within Hamilton
County, Ohio.
6. Defendant McGuffey was elected Sheriff of Hamilton County in
November of 2020 and took office on about January 4, 2021. McGuffey is the
appointing authority pursuant to O.R.C. § 311.04(B)(1) and § 325.17. For
purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, McGuffey is a state actor and is being sued in her
official and personal capacities.
FACTS
7. Plaintiff was hired by the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office in August
of 1981 and was employed there for 39 years.
8. Plaintiff’s last position was Chief Deputy. He reported to Sheriff Jim
Neil. Plaintiff was in charge of the day-to-day operations of the Court Services,
Enforcement, and Corrections divisions. He supervised approximately 900
employees.
2
9. As of 2017, McGuffey was employed by the Hamilton County
Sheriff’s Office as Major of Jail and Court Services.
10. In January of 2017, an internal complaint was filed against
McGuffey alleging a hostile work environment. Following an extensive
investigation by the department’s Internal Affairs Division, Plaintiff recommended
McGuffey’s termination.
11. Rather than dismissing McGuffey, Sheriff Neil offered her another
position. McGuffey refused to take the position and was terminated on about
June 1, 2017.
12. McGuffey later filed a lawsuit against the Hamilton County Sheriff’s
Office and others. She alleged, in part, that the defendants terminated her
employment based on gender or sexual orientation in violation of Title VII, 42
U.S.C. § 2000e-2 and Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4112. McGuffey also alleged
that the defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3 and O.R.C. § 4112.02 (I) by
retaliating against her for opposing unlawful employment practices.
13. On about May 9, 2019, Plaintiff was deposed in connection with
McGuffey’s lawsuit. Some of Plaintiff’s testimony was unfavorable to McGuffey.
14. In November of 2020, McGuffey was elected Hamilton County
Sheriff. Her term began on January 4, 2021.
15. On about December 26, 2020, McGuffey notified Plaintiff that his
employment would not continue during her tenure and that he would be
terminated effective January 4, 2021. She did not provide a reason for the
decision.
3
COUNT I
(First Amendment Retaliation)
16. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-15 as if fully restated.
17. Plaintiff engaged in speech protected under the First Amendment
when he testified under oath about matters of public concern, including whether
there had been discrimination in the Sheriff’s Office.
18. Plaintiff’s right to testify truthfully regarding matters of public
concern outweighed any countervailing interest the Sheriff’s Office had in
promoting the efficiency of the public services it provided through its employees.
19. McGuffey was aware of Plaintiff’s speech. She attended Plaintiff’s
deposition.
20. McGuffey retaliated against Plaintiff and terminated his employment
effective the same day she took office as Sheriff.
21. Plaintiff’s protected speech was a substantial or motivating factor in
McGuffey’s decision to terminate his employment.
22. McGuffey retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
23. As Sheriff, McGuffey is a policy-making official, and Hamilton County
is liable for conduct taken in her official capacity.
24. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, McGuffey is personally liable for her
violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights taken under color of state law.
4
COUNT II
(Retaliation in violation of O.R.C. § 4112.02 (I))
25. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1-24 as if fully restated.
26. Plaintiff engaged in protected conduct under O.R.C. § 4112.02 (I)
when he testified and participated in an action relating to discrimination and
retaliation prohibited by Chapter 4112 of the Ohio Revised Code.
27. Defendants were aware of Plaintiff’s conduct and terminated his
employment as a result. There is a causal connection between Plaintiff’s protected
conduct and his termination. Plaintiff testified in a manner adverse to McGuffey and
she retaliated against him by terminating his employment as soon as she had the
opportunity and authority to do so.
28. Defendants have violated O.R.C. § 4112.02(I) as enforced through
O.R.C. § 4112.99.
29. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has lost income and
benefits and has further suffered emotional distress and mental anxiety.
30. Wherefore, Plaintiff requests the following:
a. reinstatement or front pay in lieu thereof;
b. damages for all lost income and benefits;
c. compensatory damages;
d. punitive damages;
e. reasonable attorney’s fees and costs;
f. pre-judgment interest; and
g. all other legal and equitable relief to which he is entitled.
31. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues triable by jury.
5
Respectfully submitted,
s/ David Torchia
David Torchia (0015962)
Tobias, Torchia & Simon
600 Vine Street, Suite 910
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
(513) 241-8137
[email protected]
Attorney for Plaintiff

Mark Schoonover Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mark Schoonover Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mark Schoonover Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 1:22-cv-00767-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/26/22 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MARK SCHOONOVER : Case No.

1. This is an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violation of

4112.02 (I) as enforced through O.R.C. § 4112.99

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. The jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331

state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

3. Venue is proper in this district as the named Defendants reside in

4. Plaintiff is a former employee of the Hamilton County Sheriff’s

5. Hamilton County is a political subdivision of the state of Ohio and is

amenable to suit through the Board of Commissioners pursuant to O.R.C. §

305.12. The Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office is a department within Hamilton

6. Defendant McGuffey was elected Sheriff of Hamilton County in

appointing authority pursuant to O.R.C. § 311.04(B)(1) and § 325.17. For

official and personal capacities.

7. Plaintiff was hired by the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office in August

of 1981 and was employed there for 39 years.

8. Plaintiff’s last position was Chief Deputy. He reported to Sheriff Jim

Enforcement, and Corrections divisions. He supervised approximately 900

9. As of 2017, McGuffey was employed by the Hamilton County

Sheriff’s Office as Major of Jail and Court Services.

10. In January of 2017, an internal complaint was filed against

McGuffey alleging a hostile work environment. Following an extensive

investigation by the department’s Internal Affairs Division, Plaintiff recommended

employment based on gender or sexual orientation in violation of Title VII, 42

retaliating against her for opposing unlawful employment practices.

13. On about May 9, 2019, Plaintiff was deposed in connection with

McGuffey’s lawsuit. Some of Plaintiff’s testimony was unfavorable to McGuffey.

14. In November of 2020, McGuffey was elected Hamilton County

Sheriff. Her term began on January 4, 2021.

16. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-15 as if fully restated.

17. Plaintiff engaged in speech protected under the First Amendment

there had been discrimination in the Sheriff’s Office.

18. Plaintiff’s right to testify truthfully regarding matters of public

concern outweighed any countervailing interest the Sheriff’s Office had in

19. McGuffey was aware of Plaintiff’s speech. She attended Plaintiff’s

20. McGuffey retaliated against Plaintiff and terminated his employment

effective the same day she took office as Sheriff.

21. Plaintiff’s protected speech was a substantial or motivating factor in

McGuffey’s decision to terminate his employment.

22. McGuffey retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of the First

Amendment to the United States Constitution.

23. As Sheriff, McGuffey is a policy-making official, and Hamilton County

is liable for conduct taken in her official capacity.

24. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, McGuffey is personally liable for her

violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights taken under color of state law.

25. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1-24 as if fully restated.

26. Plaintiff engaged in protected conduct under O.R.C. § 4112.02 (I)

when he testified and participated in an action relating to discrimination and

retaliation prohibited by Chapter 4112 of the Ohio Revised Code.

27. Defendants were aware of Plaintiff’s conduct and terminated his

employment as a result. There is a causal connection between Plaintiff’s protected

opportunity and authority to do so.

28. Defendants have violated O.R.C. § 4112.02(I) as enforced through

29. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has lost income and

30. Wherefore, Plaintiff requests the following:

a. reinstatement or front pay in lieu thereof;

b. damages for all lost income and benefits;