Frenchko v. Monroe

672 F.Supp.3d 421

Niki FRENCHKO, Plaintiff, v. Paul MONROE, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 4:23-cv-781

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Signed January 16, 2023

David J. Betras, Betras, Kopp & Harshman, Canfield, OH, Steven C. Davis, Matthew E. Miller-Novak, Barron Peck Bennie & Schlemmer, Cincinnati, OH, for Plaintiff.

Daniel T. Downey, Helen K. Sudhoff, Fishel Downey Albrecht & Riepenhoff, New Albany, OH, Jennifer M. Meyer, City of Parma, Parma, OH, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

J. Philip Calabrese, United States District Judge

Here in America, we do not arrest our political opponents. This case tests that longstanding norm as well as our Constitution's robust protections for free speech that allow us to criticize our representatives and public officials. Plaintiff Niki Frenchko won election to the three-member Board of County Commissioners of Trumbull County, Ohio. She was an outsider, and the only member of County government from her political party. As a public official, she used her position to needle the incumbents and, in her view, hold them accountable for their decisions. For their part, they viewed her as ignorant of the basic workings of county government and a nuisance, to put it mildly. As her colleagues became more and more frustrated and impatient with her, their personal and political disagreements grew increasingly heated.

After Commissioner Frenchko criticized the performance of Sheriff Paul Monroe, a Defendant in this action, two of his deputies arrested her during a public meeting of the Trumbull County Commission as she spoke on a matter of public concern and criticized the Sheriff. Based on this and other incidents, Plaintiff brought this lawsuit seeking to vindicate her federal constitutional rights. She sued several public officials, as well as Trumbull County itself, the County Sheriff's Department, and the Trumbull County Board of Commissioners. Both Plaintiff and all Defendants seek a summary judgment in their favor.

For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART each motion. On some claims, Commissioner Frenchko is entitled to summary judgment; on others, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment; a jury must decide some; and still others are best addressed in State court.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff and Defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In this procedural posture, the Court construes the facts in Defendants' favor in ruling on Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and in Plaintiff's favor in ruling on Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Because videos capture many of the key events at issue, there is not much room to dispute what they show. But where the record presents material disputes or competing versions of the facts, the Court so notes.

A. The Trumbull County Board of Commissioners

By way of background, a three-member commission governs Trumbull County, Ohio, which has a population of approximately 200,000 in Northeast Ohio outside of Youngstown. The Board possesses "all the powers and duties vested by law in boards of county commissioners": it "is the policy-determining body of the county." Ohio Rev. Code § 302.12. Under Ohio law, the Board must "conduct at least fifty regular sessions each year." Id. § 305.06(A). Such meetings "shall be public" and held "in conformity with the rules of parliamentary law." Id. § 305.09; see id. § 121.22.

Plaintiff Niki Frenchko won election to the Trumbull County Board of Commissioners in 2020 and took office in 2021. (ECF No. 49, PageID #1039-40.) She ran on a platform of disrupting the entrenched practices of county leadership. (Id., PageID #1081.) She challenged an incumbent who had held office since 2004 and who also served as the chairman of the county Democratic party. Before the election, Ms. Frenchko faced a board of elections inquiry into her qualifications. State ex rel. Frenchko v. Trumbull Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 161 Ohio St. 3d 174, 2020-Ohio-4253, 161 N.E.3d 616, ¶ 3. After her election, her opponent and a number of voters protested the result, charging that Ms. Frenchko was ineligible to serve as a commissioner, claiming that she did not reside in Trumbull County. Polivka v. Frenchko, Trumbull Cnty. Ct. Com. Pl. No. 2020CV01327, slip op. at 3-4 (Feb. 2, 2021). The State trial court rejected this effort to overturn the election. Id. Commissioner Frenchko assumed office in January 2021, making her "the first Republican and first woman to serve as Trumbull County commissioner in at least three decades." Guy Vogrin, Victory is hers again, The Vindicator (Dec. 21, 2020).

At the relevant times, two other commissioners served with Ms. Frenchko: Mauro Cantalamessa and Frank Fuda, who served as the chair. (ECF No. 43-1, PageID #424.) Commissioner Cantalamessa served on the board since 2013, and Commissioner Fuda served since 2007. (Id.; ECF No. 42-1, PageID #301.) By all accounts, Commissioner Frenchko brought a dissenting and often unwelcome voice to the Trumbull County Board of Commissioners. In her own words, Commissioner Frenchko has "been critical" of her colleagues and "embarrassed [them] by ... exposing how they've been doing business ... over their terms in a very inept and corrupted way." (ECF No. 49, PageID #1053.)

At meetings of the Trumbull County Commission, Commissioner Frenchko and her two colleagues often sparred. (ECF No. 43, PageID #485.) Even disagreements over policy often devolved into arguments during which the commissioners interrupted one another. (Id., PageID #485-88.) Often, the meetings descended into personal insults. For example, at public meetings Commissioner Fuda referred to Commissioner Frenchko as "this lady." (June 10 meeting video at 3:00 & 3:40.) During one public meeting, he held up photographs to Commissioner Frenchko of the trash can in the women's restroom containing used tampons. (ECF No. 42-1, PageID #378.)

Commissioner Frenchko developed a practice of live streaming meetings to her Facebook page. (ECF No. 50, PageID #1119-20.) Under Ohio law, that practice is lawful. See, e.g., Foulk v. City of Upper Arlington, Ct. of Cl. No. 2017-00132-PQ, 2017-Ohio-4249, ¶ 15 (citing McVey v. Carthage Twp. Trs., 4th Dist. Athens No. 04CA44, 2005-Ohio-2869, ¶ 14-15, 2005 WL 1367462; Kline v. Davis, 4th Dist. Lawrence Nos. 00CA32, 2001-Ohio-2625, 2001 WL 1590658, *3, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 5598, at *8-9; 1998 Ohio Att'y Gen. No. 087, at 2-415).

B. Dispute Involving the Trumbull County Jail

At the Commission's meeting on June 1, 2022, though not on the agenda, Commissioner Frenchko read into the record the concerns of the mother of an inmate at the Trumbull County jail. (ECF No. 49, PageID #1056-57; ECF No. 51-1, PageID #1300.) The mother's email asserted that her son contracted meningitis and received inadequate medical assistance. (ECF No. 51-1, PageID #1300.) Commissioner Frenchko reported that she learned that the inmate "did survive but has lost hearing in one ear, and has to go to rehabilitation for physical reasons." (Id.) In her view, "this was unacceptable." (Id.) Also, she reported that the Sheriff, Defendant Paul Monroe, an independently elected public official, failed to respond to her requests for information about relevant policies. (Id.) Commissioner Frenchko said that she raised the issue "to bring this to people's attention" and accused the two other commissioners of having "half a heart when it comes to inmate care." (Id.)

On July 5, 2022, the Sheriff responded to the Commissioner's reading of the letter "claiming to be written by the mother of a previously incarcerated adult inmate in the Trumbull County Jail." (ECF No. 51-2, PageID #1303.) Sheriff Monroe chastised Commissioner Frenchko for "read[ing] [the letter] publically [sic]" "without any investigation or corroboration to verify whether the letter was factually based or simply unfounded allegations." (Id.) He wrote: "Such a public presentation prior to initiating an appropriate, [sic] investigation through well-established, existing investigatory protocol is contrary to sound government and procedural justice safeguards." (Id.) Sheriff Monroe characterized Commissioner Frenchko's reading of the letter as "reckless behavior" that "should not be tolerated by Trumbull County citizens nor other elected officials." (Id., PageID #1304.) After undertaking his own investigation, Sheriff Monroe declared that the "complaint had no basis in fact" and that inmates receive "quality, professional healthcare." (Id.) Sheriff Monroe concluded by stating that he expected "a public apology from Commissioner Frenchko ... be delivered in the same public forum as was the publication of the false accusations." (Id.)

Notwithstanding this request in his response, Sheriff Monroe testified that his intent was not to read the letter at the next meeting of the commissioners. (ECF No. 44-1, PageID #575-76.) Further, he testified that reading the letter into the record was Commissioner Fuda's idea and that he (Sheriff Monroe) did not know Commissioner Fuda would do so. (Id., PageID #576.) But Commissioner Fuda testified that Sheriff Monroe did not object to having someone else read the letter at the next meeting. (ECF No. 42-1, PageID #385.)

C. Commission Meeting—July 7, 2022

The Commission held its next meeting on July 7, 2022. The events of that meeting give rise to this litigation, so the Court discusses them in some detail. Unless otherwise noted, the Court takes the following facts from video and audio recordings of the meeting and made a part of the record. (ECF No. 52, PageID #1390, Item 1.) Where helpful, the Court points to specific points in the recordings for these facts.

C.1. Commissioner Frenchko's Disruption

Approximately 36 minutes into the meeting, shortly before 11:10 a.m., without objection, Commissioner Fuda directed the clerk to read aloud Sheriff Monroe's letter. While recording from her cellphone, Commissioner Frenchko relocated from the dais where the...