BRIAN OSWALD vs. LAKOTA LOCAL SCHOOL BOARD
BRIAN OSWALD vs. LAKOTA LOCAL SCHOOL BOARD
Plaintiff Brian Oswald (“Oswald”) states the following for his Complaint and Request for
Declaratory, Injunctive, and Monetary Relief against Defendant Lakota Local School Board (the
“School Board”):
INTRODUCTION
1. This is a lawsuit, brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988, to remedy violations of
all Plaintiff’s right to access and petition his government representatives and to freely express his
opinions as to matters of political and public concern. Plaintiff is a private citizen who has an
interest in the policies and practices of the School Board. Plaintiff desired to speak publicly as to
the School Board’s policies related to mask mandates. In response to the growing number of
people contracting the COVID-19 virus, the School Board adopted a policy that required all
school age children to wear a mask while on school premises. Plaintiff opposed this action by
the School Board and desired to address the School Board during the public participation portion
1
Case: 1:21-cv-00681-DRC Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/25/21 Page: 2 of 7 PAGEID #: 2
of its meeting to raise his concerns with this policy. His desire to speak was met with censorship
PARTIES
2. Plaintiff Brian Oswald is a resident of Butler County, Ohio, and whose child
Butler County, Ohio. Its actions described in this Complaint are undertaken under color of state
law.
4. This Court has jurisdiction to hear this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because
it arises under the laws of the United States, and Plaintiff’s claims are brought under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 and the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
5. Venue is proper in the Southern District of Ohio under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because
all or a substantial amount of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred within this
District.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
6. Oswald is a local resident in the Lakota School District, and his child attends its
schools.
(the “Rules”) posted online, any person with a “legitimate interest in the action of the Board”
may address the School Board during public participation for a limit of three (3) minutes. The
term “legitimate interest” is not defined in the Rules or elsewhere. In addition, the Rules facially
2
Case: 1:21-cv-00681-DRC Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/25/21 Page: 3 of 7 PAGEID #: 3
limit speakers to be “residents” of the District, or to be a “resident’s designee.” The Rules are
8. The Rules state that “[a]ll statements shall be directed to the presiding officer; no
participate in the public portion of the meeting upon their arrival at the meeting.” See Exhibit A.
10. The Rules permit the presiding officer to “interrupt, warn, or terminate a
participants’ statement when the statement is too lengthy, personally directed, abusive, obscene,
11. The Rules further state that “the portion of the meeting during the participation of
the public is invited will be at the discretion of the Board.” See Exhibit A.
12. Thus, the presiding officer has the unbridled discretion to restrain speech.
13. On September 27, 2021, Oswald attended the School Board meeting and
registered his intention to participate in the public portion of the meeting regarding the school’s
mask mandate.
14. In August 2021, the School Board maintained that any child, regardless of
vaccination status, was mandated to wear a mask while on school property for the upcoming
15. Oswald and other local families are opposed to the concept of requiring the
16. Only a few seconds into his speech, and well before Oswald reached the three (3)
minute limit, the School Board began interrupting Oswald, who was addressing the audience,
3
Case: 1:21-cv-00681-DRC Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/25/21 Page: 4 of 7 PAGEID #: 4
and directing him to speak directly to the school board. Eventually, the School Board ordered a
17. The armed deputy escorted Oswald from the public speaking area.
18. The Rules do not prohibit participants from addressing the audience while
speaking.
19. As this example illustrates, the School Board fabricated and invented a rule and
thereby retrained Oswald’s speech so he could not criticize the School Board or its policies.
20. The School Board continues to fabricate rules in order to frustrate and chill
speech.
21. On September 29, 2021, Oswald was made aware from his employer, the Butler
County Sheriff’s Office, that a formal complaint had been filed against him by the School
District for his conduct during the September 27, 2021, School Board meeting.
22. The Butler County Sheriff’s Office launched an internal affairs investigation into
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
Count I
42 U.S.C. § 1983 – First Amendment Violation (Freedom of Speech)
25. Plaintiff criticized the School Board regarding its decision to impose a mask
26. Plaintiff’s speech is protected under the First Amendment of the United States
4
Case: 1:21-cv-00681-DRC Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/25/21 Page: 5 of 7 PAGEID #: 5
27. The School Board has violated Plaintiff’s right of free expression in the following
ways:
a. The use of vague and undefined terms, including but not limited to, “legitimate
b. The vesting of such unbridled discretion in the School Board and its presiding
d. The imposition of content-based restrictions on speech that are not the least
e. The Rules further state that “the portion of the meeting during the participation of
30. The School Board retaliated against Oswald when it had an armed deputy remove
him for criticizing its decisions to impose a mask mandate on its’ students.
31. In order to restrain Plaintiff’s criticisms, the School Board fabricated non-existent
rules.
32. The School Board used non-existent rules to restrain Oswald’s ability to speak
5
Case: 1:21-cv-00681-DRC Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/25/21 Page: 6 of 7 PAGEID #: 6
33. The School Board intentionally utilized these rules to restrain Oswald’s speech
34. The School Board continues to fabricate rules in order to frustrate, chill, punish,
and restrain Plaintiff from criticizing the School Board during public participation based on
35. The School Board continues to threaten and intimidate Oswald, as well as other
36. The School Board damaged Oswald, acted maliciously, and intended to punish
37. Oswald is entitled to compensatory damages, attorney fees, litigation costs, and
38. Oswald further seeks an order from this Court to enjoin the School Board from
continuing to punish Plaintiff for engaging in protected speech, restraining his speech, chilling
39. Oswald further seeks an order enjoining the School Board from continuing to
40. Oswald further seeks an order protecting all members of the public from the same.
Count II
Defamation
42. The School Board made false statements about Oswald to his employer in an
43. The School Board has communicated those false statements to Oswald’s
6
Case: 1:21-cv-00681-DRC Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/25/21 Page: 7 of 7 PAGEID #: 7
44. The School Board intentionally spoke these false statements that caused damage
to Oswald’s reputation.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court issue judgment in his favor
b) Compensatory damages;
c) Injunctive relief precluding the School Board from restraining Plaintiff’s speech
and offices and from otherwise denying his right to contact, petition, and access its officials or
school employees;
d) Injunctive relief enjoining the School Board from placing unbridled discretion in
the presiding officer to restrain speech based upon its overbroad, vague, and content-based rules;
g) Any other actual damages or equitable relief the Court deems fit under the
circumstances.
Respectfully submitted,