City settles lawsuit with former manager for $80K, moves closer to closing censure case

by Judy Stringer

Two lawsuits involving the city of Hudson have seen recent developments.

On July 9, Hudson City Council approved a resolution to pay former City Manager Jane Howington $80,000 as part of a settlement of a suit the city filed against her on Nov. 7, 2023.

Hudson sued Howington – who resigned in March 2022 amid a possible suspension and/or dismissal – for breach of contract, arguing that her comments in a July 21, 2023, mass email and a Nov. 1, 2023, Hudson Life ad violated a “non-disparagement” clause in the separation agreement that both parties signed when she resigned. The email and ad were related to Howington’s involvement in Clocktower Collaborative, a nonprofit founded “to promote voting and civility,” the organization’s website says.  

According to the city’s suit, Howington wrote in the email that the Clocktower Collaborative donation roster would be concealed because “many folks in Hudson” are concerned about “being targeted by some of the incumbents’ wrath.” As for the ad, which was an open letter she signed along with other Clocktower Collaborative leaders, the city’s suit takes issue with reference to “the new ‘confrontational and control’ trend” in local governance.

Hudson’s suit sought to recoup Howington’s severance pay due to the alleged contract breach.

In May, Summit County Court of Common Pleas Judge Kathryn Michael ruled that the suit “constitutes frivolous conduct” and that Howington could seek damages. In addition to the $80,000 settlement payment, the city agreed to remove the non-disparagement clause from the 2022 separation agreement.

Prior to the July 9 vote on the settlement resolution, council member Patricia Goetz said she would vote yes, “because I do not want the city to spend more money on an appeal, which would happen if we don’t try to settle this.”

“A claim is frivolous when it lacks any arguable basis in law or in fact, and that’s what a judge stated about this [lawsuit],” Goetz said. “The lawsuit was designed to harass our former City Manager Jane Howington. It will cost Hudson taxpayers a significant amount of money for the settlement, as well as a yet undisclosed amount paid to [city solicitor Marshal] Pitchford for his counsel.”

Goetz also read a statement from absent council member Nicole Kowalski. In the statement, Kowalski characterized the city’s suit as “one giant fishing expedition,” subpoenaing “personal communications” from “targeted residents.”

In response, council member Skylar Sutton said the accusation of a fishing expedition is “rich coming from someone who submits public records requests at least monthly for council President [Chris] Foster’s communications as well as mine.”

“I would also like to point out that it’s an interesting claim from [Kowalski] that we’ve wasted taxpayer dollars, considering she is the one who sued the city [and] by my estimate wasted $70,000 of taxpayer dollars,” Sutton said.

Censure case

With respect to Kowalski’s suit against Hudson, the At-Large member was not successful in her bid to compel the city to publicly release unredacted copies of a 46-page document, which the city contends is covered by attorney-client privilege. Foster provided the document in question to council on Dec. 6, 2022, as evidence for a censure of Kowalski.

In a July 12 ruling, Summit County Court of Common Pleas Judge Tammy O’Brien wrote that “uncontroverted evidence” establishes the unredacted records as “protected by attorney-client privilege and not subject to the Ohio Public Records Act.”

O’Brien had previously dismissed an administrative appeal in which Kowalski had asked the court to review her censure and determine if it was fair and followed the law. The judge cited “lack of subject-matter jurisdiction” in that Feb. 21 decision.

In a July 18 email statement, Foster said evidence in the case showed Kowalski attached the unredacted documents to an email to a Hudson resident.

“I suspect the entire writ was an attempt to make public those records so Ms. Kowalski would not be presumptively guilty for violating privilege,” he said.

Kowalski, also via email, said she was “beyond disappointed at the rulings, specifically that the court will not allow me the opportunity to present the facts and be heard, an opportunity certain members of the council never afforded me when they censured me for purely vindictive political reasons.”

“My attorneys, family and I are still considering an appeal of these decisions at this time,” she wrote. ∞