Federal judge tosses First Amendment retaliation claim in Gibbs' lawsuit, allows 'whistleblower,' defamation claims to stand
A former administrator for Ottawa County was not able to convince a federal court judge that his former employer retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment right to free speech.
OTTAWA COUNTY — A former administrator for Ottawa County was not able to convince a federal court judge that his former employer retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment right to free speech.
In an order issued Wednesday, Dec. 4, U.S. District Judge Jane M. Beckering dismissed the top count of John Gibbs’ lawsuit against Ottawa County, saying the former administrator didn’t sufficiently argue that he aired criticisms as a private citizen against county attorneys Kallman Legal Group.
Gibbs filed a lawsuit on April 8 in federal court claiming the board retaliated against him, violated his First Amendment rights and that Board Chair Joe Moss defamed him on social media that “lack factual support” and that Moss “knew that the defamatory statements were false.”
Gibbs was fired Feb. 29, after Moss motioned to terminate the administrator for cause — largely focused on allegations brought forward by two employees who had been working for Gibbs for a handful of months.
Read More: Fired administrator Gibbs sues Ottawa County, Moss for wrongful termination, defamation
Gibbs said the accusations from Executive Aide Jordan Epperson and then-Deputy Administrator Wetmore were manufactured after Gibbs identified "corruption and opposed bad governance" by the board.
They targeted Gibbs "by concocting a laundry list of miscellaneous, contrived allegations that only saw the light of day after I attempted to hold them accountable," Gibbs said after he was fired.
Gibbs, who was hired by the Ottawa Impact majority on the board, said he was punished for disagreeing with Moss and Kallman on several policies and strategies.
Ottawa Impact, a far-right fundamentalist group, assumed a controlling majority on the board in January 2023. Shortly after being sworn into office, the group made a series of controversial decisions, including firing former administrator John Shay and hiring Gibbs, a former Republican candidate who lost to Democrat Hillary Scholten in 2022 for the state's third congressional district race.
"They've decided to go on a warpath, which is what they do to everybody, including me," Gibbs said on March 1, of the OI majority that Moss leads. "For them, you have to absolutely agree with everything in lockstep, or else they will attack you. It's a little bit dictatorial, like school bullying, where if you're not with them, they'll try to shove you in a locker. When I raised questions about (Kallman Legal Group), they thought I wasn't being a team player or that the devil got to me or something."
In her ruling, Beckering cited a letter Gibbs sent to the county’s attorney, David Kallman, as well as to Moss, Vice Chair Sylvia Rhodea, and three other commissioners.
Although Gibbs claimed he aired his concerns to not only his county supervisors but to members of the public as well, Beckering said because the public never received the same letter, the threshold couldn’t be met to substantiate a First Amendment retaliation claim.
“(Gibbs’) responsibility to communicate with the board about his day-to-day administration of the county — no matter the vehicle he chose for doing so — was a responsibility that fell squarely within his professional job description,” Beckering wrote. “The U.S. Supreme Court has explained that ‘when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes.”
In her ruling, Beckering said the federal court would not maintain jurisdiction over the other two counts alleged in the lawsuit: retaliation in violation of Michigan’s Whistleblower Protection Act against the county and defamation against Moss individually.
Beckering dismissed those counts without prejudice, meaning Gibbs is allowed to refile the two remaining claims in a Michigan court. According to court rules, he has until Jan. 24 to do so.
Gibbs v Ottawa Co order 12.04.2024.pdf207KB ∙ PDF fileDownloadRead U.S. District Court Judge Jane M. Beckering's order.Download
Although a monetary figure for damages is not specified in the lawsuit, Gibbs is seeking "compensatory, economic and non-economic damages" and well as punitive damages to be determined by a judge.
Gibbs was one of four administrators who worked for the county over the past two years. After he was fired, the county hired local sheriff candidate Jon Anderson as the interim administrator; he resigned in October.
The OI majority opted to appoint Wetmore as the interim administrator in October and launched a formal search for the next permanent administrator, despite criticisms from minority board members as well as incoming commissioners in 2025 urging the board to wait.
Despite the search yielding two top finalists, both withdrew from the process just days apart late last month, prompting Moss to accuse Commissioner-Elect John Teeples and current Commissioner Jacob Bonnema of “intimidating” one or more of the candidates.
Both Teeples and Bonnema have denied Moss’ claims.
The Gibbs lawsuit is one of six filed during the current two-year term led by the OI majority on the board.
One lawsuit was dismissed earlier this year alleging Open Meetings Act violations of the OI board majority. Three others were settled out of court for a combined $463,000 (not including the county’s internal legal costs).
Sentinel Leach is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
The other remaining active lawsuit was filed in late October, claiming that separate Freedom of Information Act requests made by the two plaintiffs were not fulfilled adequately by the county to what state law requires.
The plaintiffs’ attorney, Sarah Riley-Howard, filed a motion on Nov. 25 asking Circuit Court Judge Margaret Z. Bakker for a summary disposition, a legal term that refers to a court's decision to resolve a case without a trial when the facts are undisputed and the law is clear.
The county has not yet responded to Howard’s request.
— Contact Sarah Leach at SentinelLeach@gmail.com. Follow her on Twitter @SentinelLeach. Subscribe to her content at sentinelleach.substack.com.
