Stephens, Gmoser and Ferguson have all asked the federal judge to dismiss the majority of the case. Edelstein was responding to that motion when she added the new allegation against the prosecutor.
FIRST REPORT: Ex-magistrate sues judge, claims firing was because she is Jewish
She recently lost her job with Wood County Prosecutor Paul Dotson’s office and blames Gmoser.
“Defendant Gmoser contacted plaintiff’s new employer, which resulted in plaintiff being terminated from a second job,” Edelstein wrote in a response to the court. “As a result of the abuse of power and disregard of the law by these public officials, plaintiff has been effectively denied the ability to become employed in her chosen profession, rendering her license useless as a means to support her family.”
Gmoser told this newspaper the comment is flat-out false.
“I have had no conversations that were derogatory to any employer, including Paul Dotson,” Gmoser said.
Edelstein claims Stephens — who took over the bench from retired Judge Patricia Oney — fired her for wanting to take eight religious holidays off.
She is asking the court to declare the county’s vacation policy unlawful; to force the three men to stop giving her negative job references; and to be awarded in excess of $300,000 each for compensatory, punitive and liquidated damages.
Edelstein also claims the county’s policy of allowing Christians to have Christmas Day off without taking a vacation day is discriminatory.
In the motion to dismiss, Stephens and Ferguson maintain the defamation claims aren’t reasonable because their alleged remarks were stating an opinion, which is protected under the Ohio Constitution.
“Judge Stephens’ alleged statement to potential employers that Edelstein ‘was a poor employee’ is a constitutionally protected opinion,” their attorney Linda Woeber wrote.
And in Ferguson’s case, Woeber wrote: “ … Accepting her allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Edelstein, it could not be plainer that the response, ‘Oh she’s horrible,’ is an unverifiable statement of opinion.”
MORE: How safe are Butler County roundabouts?
Edelstein disagrees.
“Defendants’ statement of law, if correct, would essentially make it possible to claim all derogatory comments as opinion and thus protected,” she wrote. “That premise would put Section 11 of Article 1 of the Ohio Constitution (freedom of speech, freedom of the press and libel) in direct opposition to Section 1 of Article 1 (inalienable rights), for one citizen could state an opinion that would damage another citizen’s career, thus impinging upon that citizen’s right to enjoy liberty and acquire possessions and property. Clearly, opinion isn’t nor should it be, protected in every instance.”
Edelstein and Dotson could not be reached for comment.
About the Author