Highland County defendants file answer to former HCSO chief deputy's lawsuit

Attorneys for the Highland County Board of Commissioners, Highland County Prosecutor Anneka Collins and former Highland County Sheriff Donnie Barrera this week submitted an answer to a federal civil lawsuit filed by Highland County Sheriff's Office Chief Deputy Brandon Stratton in August.

As previously reported, Stratton took legal action in U.S. District Court Southern District, Western Division, citing a federal retaliation statute contained in 18 U.S.C. Code 1962-1964. He was relieved of his duties as HCSO chief deputy March 20.

Stratton is being represented by attorney Jessica L. Olsheski of Olsheski Law Co. The county is represented by David C. Moser of Fishel Downey Albrecht & Riepenhoff LLC.

Among the counts against the defendants are: wrongful termination; whistleblower retaliation per Ohio Revised Code 4113.52 against Defendant Highland County Board of Commissioners and Defendant Barrera; wrongful discharge in violation of public policy as to the Highland County Commissioners and Defendant Barrera; defamation as to Defendant Collins and Defendant Barrera; and whistleblower protection pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1962-1964 as to all defendants.

For each of those seven counts, the county’s answer filed Oct. 21 repeatedly states, “Highland County Defendants deny the allegations.” They later add, “Highland County Defendants explicitly deny any wrongdoing or unlawful act.”

Stratton alleges that "around November 2019, he, in the course and scope of his duties as a chief deputy, came into possession of evidence of possible serious criminal activity."
 
According to court filings, Stratton said he “advised Barrera that he had serious concerns about the electronic data he viewed, and that the sheriff’s office needed to keep a copy of that evidence for use in a criminal investigation.

"Barrera agreed at that time, and the office maintained a copy of the evidence on a flash drive," the filing states.

Stratton stored the evidence in a safe in his office. Barrera later advised he would not be pursuing an investigation at that time and forbade Stratton from investigating further, according to the filing.
 
The county responded that Stratton “immediately … took the subject flash drive into his exclusive possession, custody and control,” alleging that in doing so, Stratton “was in violation of HCSO’s evidence storage policy.”

Regarding the case in question on the flash drive, the county said it was “fully adjudicated and closed in March 2020, that further allegations involving [the suspect] were further investigated by multiple law enforcement agencies, that no further charges were pursued and that Mr. Barrera informed [Stratton] of this outcome.”

According to Stratton’s complaint, “on April 9, 2021, [Barrera] notified [Stratton] that [Collins] was accusing [Stratton] of improperly storing evidence at his home. [Stratton] immediately opened his safe and demonstrated that all the evidence was properly stored in a proper format” and alleged that he “was being harassed by” Collins.

Defendants agreed that “Collins notified Barrera” that the flash drive “was not located in the HCSO evidence storage room, in violation of policy.

“Mr. Barrera received verbal confirmation from [Stratton] that the subject flash drive was located in [Stratton’s] office, and that Mr. Barrera ordered [Stratton] that the subject flash drive was not to leave the HCSO because it had been ordered destroyed at the conclusion of [the court case],” the county’s answer says. “Collins informed the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation ("BCI") regarding the location and custody of the subject flash drive for possible investigation.”

Stratton further alleges that “on or around August 2023, Defendant Collins requested that Defendant Barrera have [Stratton] investigated for an allegedly improper workplace email; Defendant Barrera then reported falsely to the Bureau of Criminal Investigation that [Stratton] was conducting himself inappropriately in the workplace.”

The county responded that they “admit only that [Stratton] sent an agency-wide email to HCSO employees notifying them of his plans to run for the office of Highland County Sheriff, an elected partisan political position. … Defendants admit that Prosecutor Collins notified Mr. Barrera, who was then the Highland County Sheriff, that such communications were improper and likely violated the law.”

In August and September 2023, Stratton says that “Barrera informed [him] that Collins complained to [Barrera] constantly about [Stratton’s] intentions to run for Sheriff. The county answer says that Collins “identified and pointed out to Mr. Barrera” several alleged “potential election law violations and policy violations regarding partisan political activity by Stratton.”

Stratton further alleges that “on March 12, 2024, Barrera advised that [Stratton] would be returning to full duty; he told [Stratton] he wanted the aforementioned flash drive file because he wanted to destroy it. Later in the day, Defendant Barrera stated that [Stratton] would be placed on suspension again. Barrera fired [Stratton] on March 20, 2024; all of the aforementioned disciplinary actions took place contemporaneous to [Stratton’s] campaign for county Sheriff.”

According to the county’s answer, on March 12, Barrera “initially advised [Stratton] that he could return to work from his paid administrative leave, provided that [Stratton] returned and released the subject flash drive in his possession, which had previously been ordered destroyed.” The county alleges that Stratton “thereafter came to the HCSO, handed Mr. Barrera a file and left,” and that the file did not include the requested flash drive.

The county alleges that when contacted by Barrera, Stratton  “initially provided false information regarding the whereabouts of the subject flash drive, but that [Stratton] then admitted to Mr. Barrera [Stratton] had given the subject flash drive to an unnamed FBI agent,” at which point Barrera placed Stratton back on paid administrative leave.

Stratton is seeking “judgment against the Defendants for compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and treble damages in order to be fully and fairly compensated for his damages and injuries caused by Defendants' conduct, for costs fees associated with this action, for liquidated damages, for prejudgment and post-judgment interest according to law, for appropriate injunctive relief, up to and including reinstatement with full back pay, and for such other relief as this Court deems equitable and just.”

The county, which responded with 23 defenses against Stratton’s lawsuit, demands that Stratton’s “claims against them be dismissed in their entirety and with prejudice.”

The County argues that Stratton’s “complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted;” that Stratton "has or may have failed to exhaust his administrative, contractual and/or statutory remedies;” and that Stratton’s “claims for damages may be barred, in whole or in part, by prior subsequent intervening or superseding acts, omissions, or causes, and/or by the acts or omissions of individuals or entities over whom Highland County Defendants have no control or right of control.”

The county attorneys continue that Stratton’s “conduct, in whole or in part, bars [his] claims for relief” and that his “claims may be barred, in whole or in part, by: a failure to mitigate damages; by the doctrine of consent; [and/or] a lack of capacity and/or standing to seek the relief for which he prays, or because this matter is non-justiciable.” Stratton’s claims also “may be barred by the applicable statutes of limitations; or by the doctrines of laches, waiver, and/or estoppel,” the county argues.

“[Stratton] assumed the risk of the injuries and damages about which [he] complains,” the county’s answer says.

The county answer asserts that “Highland County Defendants acted in good faith and in accordance with the law;” that they “affirmatively deny that [they] have breached any duty they owed to” Stratton;” and their “actions herein met the test of reasonableness in all fashions and, as a result thereof, no actions for violations of any duty to [Stratton] are maintainable.”

The defense further argues that “Highland County Defendants are entitled to immunity, including statutory, absolute and qualified immunity, and also immunity from punitive and other damages.” Their attorneys write that Stratton’s “claims against Highland County Defendants are expressly subject to, barred or limited by the provisions of Ohio's Political Subdivision Tort Immunity Statute” and that Highland County Defendants “are entitled to a setoff of damages and/or limitation of damages pursuant to statute” and “are entitled to indemnification, contractual indemnity and contribution pursuant to statute.

“[Stratton’s] complaint fails to state facts sufficient to entitle [him] to an award of punitive damages against Highland County Defendants,” the defense continues. “To the extent [Stratton] seeks punitive damages against Highland County Defendants, [Stratton’s] claims for punitive damages cannot be sustained because the conduct of Highland County Defendants did not show complete indifference to or conscious disregard for the safety of others. …  [A]n award of those types is contrary to the United States and Ohio Constitutions, as well as federal and state statutes, and is therefore not available to [Stratton].”

The county further argues that Stratton’s “complaint is barred and frivolous because certain named parties are not sui juris or capable of being sued” and that the federal court “lacks subject matter jurisdiction over some or all of the allegations included in the Complaint.

“Highland County Defendants hereby give notice that they intend to rely upon and utilize any other affirmative defenses that might become available or apparent during the course of discovery and hereby reserve the right to amend this Answer to assert such defense or defenses,” the defense concludes.

Publisher's note: A free press is critical to having well-informed voters and citizens. While some news organizations opt for paid websites or costly paywalls, The Highland County Press has maintained a free newspaper and website for the last 25 years for our community. If you would like to contribute to this service, it would be greatly appreciated. Donations may be made to: The Highland County Press, P.O. Box 849, Hillsboro, Ohio 45133. Please include "for website" on the memo line.