I-Team: Hudson lawsuit against ex-city manager Jane Howington, deemed frivolous, settled for $80K

While the City strongly and respectfully disagreed with the judge’s decision in the separation agreement enforcement action against former City Manager Jane Howington, the City is pleased to announce that it has reached an agreement resolving the matter.

The City filed the case under seal in order to protect Jane Howington and the City. In an attempt to honor both the spirit and letter of the confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses of the separation agreement (signed when Mrs. Howington resigned), the City of Hudson temporality and subject to the court’s order submitted the case under seal. The City did not wish to disparage Mrs. Howington with the mere filing of the lawsuit. There is legal precedent from Summit County that leaves open the question of whether a lawsuit about disparagement constitutes, in and of itself, disparagement. See Capital Fire Protection Co. v. Brinker. From the very beginning, the City felt that the case could be open to the public so long as Jane Howington was not taking the position that the lawsuit itself was a violation of the non-disparagement and confidentiality clauses.

The separation agreement stated the ‘parties agree that this Agreement and its terms shall remain confidential and shall not be disclosed to other employees of Hudson or to any third parties.’ The agreement also stated one, narrow exception: the agreement may be disclosed as ‘may be required by law or a court.’ As a result, in the absence of a public records request or court order, the City had an obligation to maintain confidentiality.

In entering the settlement, neither side admitted fault. Jane Howington and the City expressly agreed the settlement was a compromise to ‘resolve disputed claims and to avoid further costs, uncertainties, and inconvenience in continuing litigation and the pursuit of their respective claims.’

As a part of the settlement, the problematic confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses in the prior agreement were deleted. In order to avoid more legal costs that would come with an appeal and other litigation, a settlement was the best and most-cost efficient course of action.

The City looks forward to focusing on all the good work being done in the community.

Statement from the city of Hudson

Recently, you all became aware of this case in the Court of Common Pleas of Summit County when it was finally unsealed. Several filings are finally available for the public to view on the Summit County Clerk of Courts website. The local press picked up the story and reported on the case based on the documents that are publicly available.

What the Council majority attempted to do is obvious. But here is something not so obvious: from the filings publicly available, you will see that the City sought to subpoena 15 people in their attempt at ‘third-party discovery.’ Myself, State Rep. Casey Weinstein, current Council members Patricia Goetz and Mike Bird, and former candidate for Council Madeline Leipdi Carino who challenged Council President Chris Foster this past November for the Ward 2 seat were all on the list. Two other noteworthy names on the subpoena list for the CITY OF HUDSON, OH v. JANE DOE case are Patsy Simons and Don Reed, who were also subpoenaed by the City in fighting the appeal I filed to have a judge overturn the unlawful, politically motivated censure initiated by Council President Foster that took place in late 2022.

It is my belief that this ‘third-party discovery’ was a tactic to obtain personal communications from those targeted residents, one giant fishing expedition. Government should NEVER be able to use its power to invade your personal communications and violate your privacy.

As a resident of this City, do you like knowing that taxpayer dollars are being used to pay a lawyer to subpoena your neighbors in a suit that has been deemed frivolous by a Judge? That essentially YOU, too, could be subpoenaed simply for receiving an email?

I have been against the City filing this suit from the beginning, and I agree with Judge Michaels that it is frivolous.

Although I want to see all of this end, it never should have started, which is why I had planned to vote NO on this tonight. We should NOT be spending taxpayer dollars so the Council majority can target their political opponents. Unfortunately, I am unable to be here tonight to vote NO on this.

The Council majority wasted a substantial amount of taxpayer dollars on this. You all will notice that the brief description reads that part of the terms of the settlement will be, ‘…deleting the prior non-disparagement and confidentiality clauses from the prior separation agreement.’ Have you ever wondered what price is worth paying to talk smack about the former City Manager? Well, now you all know.

I hope this is the last time this Council majority wastes taxpayer dollars to target strong women in the community who dare to stand up to bullies, three times already is too many.

City of Hudson at-large councilmember Nicole Kowalski