Case: 1:21-cv-00681-DRC Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/25/21 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

BRIAN OSWALD : Case Number: 1:21-cv-681

c/o Caparella-Kraemer & Associates, LLC :
4841-A Rialto Road : Judge:
West Chester, Ohio 45069 :
:
Plaintiff, :
:
-vs- :
:
LAKOTA LOCAL SCHOOL BOARD :
5572 Princeton Road :
Liberty Township, Ohio 45011 :
:
Defendant. :

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY, INJUNCTIVE,

AND MONETARY RELIEF

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

and condemnation from the School Board.

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff Brian Oswald is a resident of Butler County, Ohio, and whose child

attends school in the Lakota School District.

3. Defendant is a duly-elected governing body for Lakota Local School District in

Butler County, Ohio. Its actions described in this Complaint are undertaken under color of state

law.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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.

7. According to the School Boards Rules of Public Participation at Board Meetings

(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

attached hereto as Exhibit A.

8. The Rules state that “[a]ll statements shall be directed to the presiding officer; no

person may address or question Board members individually.” See Exhibit A.

9. The Rules further “encourage” to attendees to “register their intention to

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,

or irrelevant.” See Exhibit A.

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

2021-2022 school year.

15. Oswald and other local families are opposed to the concept of requiring the

children to wear masks while in school.

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

deputy to remove Oswald and silence him.

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

Oswald based upon the false accusations of the School Board.

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

Count I
42 U.S.C. § 1983 – First Amendment Violation (Freedom of Speech)

23. Plaintiff restates all previous paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein.

24. Plaintiff is a politically-minded individual who desires to attend public School

Board meetings and petition that Board with grievances.

25. Plaintiff criticized the School Board regarding its decision to impose a mask

mandate upon its students.

26. Plaintiff’s speech is protected under the First Amendment of the United States

Constitution because it addresses matters of great public concern.

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:

Facial Constitutional Claims

28. The School Board Rules impose facially-unconstitutional restrictions on the

speech of Plaintiff and others.

29. These include:

a. The use of vague and undefined terms, including but not limited to, “legitimate

interest,” “personally directed,”

b. The vesting of such unbridled discretion in the School Board and its presiding

officer to define and apply these vague terms;

c. The imposition of overboard restrictions, including ones limiting public

participation to residents of the district; and

d. The imposition of content-based restrictions on speech that are not the least

restriction means of achieving a compelling government interest.

e. 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.”

As-Applied Constitutional Claims

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

during public participation because of his viewpoints and identity.

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

based on his identity and viewpoints.

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

Plaintiff’s viewpoints and identity.

35. The School Board continues to threaten and intimidate Oswald, as well as other

parents, from exercising his First Amendment rights.

36. The School Board damaged Oswald, acted maliciously, and intended to punish

him for criticizing its conduct.

37. Oswald is entitled to compensatory damages, attorney fees, litigation costs, and

all other expenses associated with this action.

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

his speech, and fabricating rules.

39. Oswald further seeks an order enjoining the School Board from continuing to

enforce its unconstitutionally vague, or overbroad and content-based rules.

40. Oswald further seeks an order protecting all members of the public from the same.

Count II
Defamation

41. Plaintiff restates all previous paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein.

42. The School Board made false statements about Oswald to his employer in an

attempt to stymie his free speech and intimidate him.

43. The School Board has communicated those false statements to Oswald’s

employers at the Butler County Sheriff’s Office.

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.

DEMAND FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court issue judgment in his favor

on all counts and award him the following relief:

a) A declaration that the School Board’s actions constitute a violation of Plaintiff’s

First and Fourteenth Amendment rights;

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;

e) An award of reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988;

f) Litigation costs and expenses; and

g) Any other actual damages or equitable relief the Court deems fit under the

circumstances.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Bradley M. Kraemer

Bradley M. Kraemer (0070329)
Briana L. Morris (0098848)
CAPARELLA-KRAEMER & ASSOCIATES, LLC
4841-A Rialto Road
West Chester, Ohio 45069
T: (513) 942-7222
F: (513) 942-6444
[email protected]