Ohio Northern settles with former professor
The agreement, signed by Ohio Northern President Melissa Baumann and former law professor Scott Gerber on March 19, brings an end to years of litigation between the parties two weeks before the case was set to be heard by a jury in Hardin County.
Ohio Northern agreed to reinstate Gerber to his former position and faculty rank, in exchange for Gerber's agreement to retire immediately upon reinstatement, according to the settlement agreement filed in Hardin County Common Pleas Court.
Ohio Northern acknowledged through the agreement that Gerber "provided outstanding teaching, scholarship and service during his years on the Ohio Northern University faculty."
The university also acknowledged Gerber "at no time was ever a public safety risk to any member of the ONU community nor acted with moral turpitude," resolving a defamation claim Gerber raised in his lawsuit.
"Ohio Northern University is pleased to have reached a resolution to this personnel issue," university spokesman David Kielmeyer said in a statement Monday. "The compromise reached through this legal settlement brings this matter to a close."
Attorney Steve Forbes said, "Dr. Gerber is pleased that Ohio Northern recognized that he is an outstanding professor and that they rescinded his termination and reinstated him."
The settlement calls for Ohio Northern to dismiss with prejudice a lawsuit against Gerber in U.S. District Court, with court costs paid by the university.
In return, Gerber agreed to discontinue any complaints or lawsuits against Ohio Northern and cease publication of his planned memoir "Cancelled."
All parties agreed not to publicly discuss settlement terms beyond those listed in public court documents. The settlement bars all parties from disparaging one another in public or private as well.
Gerber filed his lawsuit in Hardin County Common Pleas Court to reverse his termination from the Ohio Northern University Pettit College of Law, where worked as a tenured professor until the school fired him in 2023.
The lawsuit alleges Ohio Northern terminated Gerber in retaliation for his raising concerns about diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and what he believed to be illegal hiring practices favoring minorities and women at the law school.
Ohio Northern officials denied these allegations in court filings, which describe an alleged pattern of bullying, harassment and intimidation of colleagues preceding Gerber's termination.
The university filed its own lawsuit in U.S. District Court in January alleging Gerber was using litigation to seek political and personal revenge for past grievances.
Ohio Northern attorneys then sought to dismiss the Hardin County case weeks later, but Hardin County Common Pleas Court Judge Jonathan Hein denied the motion.
The settlement agreement averts a jury trial slated to begin April 7 in Hardin County.
Featured Local Savings
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
10 hours ago
- Politico
The Lawyer Who Became the Face of Trump's Deportation Agenda
On March 15, just weeks into his new job as the Department of Justice lawyer in charge of immigration litigation, Drew Ensign was called into an unusual Saturday evening court hearing. The government was preparing to whisk Venezuelan immigrants out of the country, giving them no opportunity to challenge their deportations, and send them to El Salvador's brutal prison that its government calls the Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT. When the hearing began at 5 p.m., Ensign said he did not know if the deportations were underway. U.S. District Court Judge James E. Boasberg took a break so Ensign could find out, but when the hearing resumed, Ensign said he still did not know. 'I do not have additional details I can provide at this time,' he said. The judge ordered the government not to deport the immigrants, telling Ensign, 'This is something that you need to make sure is complied with immediately.' But it quickly emerged that the government did not comply. Two planes filled with immigrants had taken off from Texas during the break in the hearing, and they landed in El Salvador and discharged their passengers hours after Boasberg issued his order. As Boasberg investigated whether the government had violated his order, Ensign's court filings became increasingly combative; he called the judge's questions a 'judicial fishing expedition' and 'intrusions into the prerogatives of the Executive Branch.' In a 46-page decision a month later, Boasberg traced the details of the flights, writing that they 'were obscured from the Court when the hearing resumed shortly after 6:00 p.m. because the Government' — meaning Ensign — 'surprisingly represented that it still had no flight details to share.' In April, Boasberg ruled that there is probable cause to find the government in criminal contempt of court for what he called its 'willful disregard' of his order, an extraordinary rebuke from a judge against a sitting administration. An appeals court issued a stay of Boasberg's inquiry the same month, and if it eventually moves forward, it remains to be seen who might be found responsible for violating the court order. But one possibility is Ensign. On June 24, a dismissed Department of Justice whistleblower, Erez Reuveni, shed new light on the Boasberg hearing in a report filed to lawmakers and the Justice Department inspector general. The account, first obtained and published by the New York Times, alleged that Ensign learned the day before the Boasberg hearing that the government would send people to the El Salvador prison that weekend, and that 'Ensign willfully misled the court' when he told Boasberg he had no information about the flights. It's not yet clear what role Ensign played, if any, in the decision to continue with the deportations despite Boasberg's order. In a letter he filed to the court on Thursday, Ensign said the government denies the whistleblower account. If Ensign is ultimately found to be in contempt — a slim but real possibility — he could be fined, lose his law license or even face prison time. The DOJ did not respond to a request for comment about the possibility of contempt proceedings. Ensign also did not respond to requests for comment or interviews for this article. Ensign, deputy assistant attorney general for immigration litigation at DOJ, has become the legal face of the Donald Trump administration's unprecedented and highly controversial deportations to CECOT. He is also defending the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case, in which the government admitted to mistakenly deporting Abrego to the El Salvador prison, in defiance of a previous court order. For weeks, Ensign argued that there was nothing the government could do to retrieve the man and that the judge had no power to order the government to do something. In that case, too, the judge, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, has raised the possibility of contempt proceedings. (On June 6, the government suddenly returned Abrego to the United States; he is facing federal human smuggling charges in Tennessee.) All of this — the headlines, the angry judges, the defense of an mistaken deportation, the possibility of contempt — comes as a surprise to people who knew Ensign in earlier stages of his career. Unlike lawyers who fought for Trump in trying to challenge the results of the 2020 election or justify the Jan. 6 insurrection, Ensign does not have the profile of a MAGA true believer. He has never donated to Trump's campaigns or to notable Trump acolytes. A graduate of Duke University and New York University Law School, one of the most selective law schools in the country, Ensign went on to spend a decade at the white-shoe law firm Latham & Watkins, representing major corporations. Those are institutions not known for Trumpiness. Although Latham recently capitulated to Trump, promising $125 million in free legal services to causes the president favors, it previously had a reputation as a non-ideological firm whose lawyers skewed liberal — in last year's election, about 90 percent of its lawyers' political donations went to Democrats. But regardless of their individual politics, lawyers at prestigious law schools and selective firms are expected to uphold the rule of law and their professional ethical obligations above all else — which made Ensign's defense of Trump's agenda at any cost even more surprising to two former colleagues. 'It's shocking to see somebody of his caliber and somebody who has been trained at a firm like Latham out there making these arguments,' said a former colleague at the firm, who, like another former Latham colleague and a former classmate, was granted anonymity because they did not want their name or current employer associated with immigration-related controversies. By choosing to defend an administration that is 'way out on a limb and not following the constitution,' the first former colleague said, Ensign was making decisions that would harm his own career and, potentially, the country. 'I don't think there's anybody who Drew has worked with, who's been a mentor to Drew, who cares about Drew's legal career, who would think that he is making really good decisions personally.' But teaming up with MAGA-world might not be career-ending at all for Ensign, who never reached the pinnacle of the staid world of big law firms. For one, his allies still see the same hard-working Drew in his role today. 'Not only is he just brilliant, but he also just has an unbelievable work ethic,' said Jill Holtzman Vogel, managing partner of Holtzman Vogel, a firm where Ensign later worked in Arizona. And then there's the possibility that Ensign may not have damaged his career by joining the Trump administration, as some former colleagues and acquaintances suggest. He may have simply found a different way to the top — a path that is becoming increasingly popular in elite fields in the age of Trump. Ensign grew up in Phoenix, the son of a local lawyer, and built a resume fitting a politically moderate over-achiever. After attending a Catholic high school, he went on to Duke, where he was elected to a top student government post with the endorsements of Black, Muslim and Asian student groups and the student newspaper. From there, he went to NYU's highly ranked law school and earned a spot editing the law review. Soon, Ensign settled in for a career at Latham & Watkins. Making partner there — which typically happens after a lawyer has worked at the firm for about eight to 10 years — means millions of dollars a year in compensation, multiples more than junior lawyers. Ensign primarily worked on the kinds of corporate defense cases that are a mainstay in the high-paying world of law firms like Latham, representing clients like Monsanto and financial institutions, according to court filings. Ensign wanted to become a partner at the firm, and he put in long hours to do it, according to the two former colleagues at Latham. But even after a decade, Ensign remained, not a partner but still grinding out his work. 'Drew worked unbelievably hard,' said the first former colleague. So, when his work did not result in partnership, 'I think that was just a real disappointment for him.' This attorney emphasized how difficult it was to make partner at the firm — how, even after devoting years of hard work and commitment to the firm, and doing everything right, a lawyer still might not make it. 'Over time, there was a lot of bitterness on his part about how things had worked out at Latham,' the first former colleague said. The second former colleague agreed, though neither knew why it happened. 'He was pretty salty about not being made partner,' the second colleague said. 'Definitely resented his circumstances at Latham after a while.' So when Ensign finally left the firm in 2017, the two former colleagues were not surprised. (Latham did not respond to a request for comment.) But they were when they saw his new job: working in the Arizona solicitor general's office under the state's die-hard conservative attorney general at the time, Mark Brnovich. Brnovich did not respond to a request for a comment. Until then, the two former co-workers had the sense that Ensign was conservative, but he was not vocal about politics, they said. Ensign's political donations bear that out. He made his first in 2008, giving $250 to Republican John McCain's presidential campaign. In the coming years, he gave similar small donations to McCain again, to Republican Mitt Romney's campaign for president and to a handful of other mainstream Republican groups. He never gave larger amounts, and he did not contribute to any of Trump's campaigns. But after taking the job in Arizona, his home state, in 2017, Ensign's career took a much more conservative turn. He argued immigration cases, including a challenge to the Joe Biden administration lifting Covid-era immigration restrictions. He adopted the language of far-right culture warriors. Speaking to the Federalist Society in 2023, Ensign complained about the EPA's 'contempt for the limits of its authority' and the Biden administration's 'unmistakable appetite for race-based decisionmaking.' The two former colleagues POLITICO Magazine spoke to said they were surprised to see him in such prominent political roles, so at odds with his prior life as a reserved, non-political corporate lawyer. None of the people POLITICO Magazine spoke to who previously knew him could explain the sudden shift. But David Lat, a prominent legal journalist who spent time as a legal recruiter and founded the legal news website Above the Law, noted that Ensign fits a pattern in the Trump administration — 'people with very elite backgrounds who are turning on the environment that shaped them.' Lat, who has not met Ensign, pointed to Vice President JD Vance, who has a degree from Yale Law School, and former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, with a degree from Harvard Business School. After Ensign was passed over for partner in the rarefied world of big law firms, 'maybe he decided he's done with it,' Lat said. 'There are a lot of these elites that have decided they're done with that world, they're washing their hands of it.' There's another possibility, though. Maybe Ensign just found another path to elite success, turning to Trump-aligned politics as another way of making it big in the legal profession. In 2023, Ensign finally became partner — not at Latham, but at a firm called Holtzman Vogel, where he could continue working on high-profile conservative cases. Holtzman Vogel is a much smaller firm than Latham and best known for its political work. While there, Ensign worked on a case fighting a Biden administration attempt to cancel student debt and another challenging EPA regulations on behalf of a Louisiana's government, according to court filings. Like at Latham, Ensign stood out at the new firm for his hard work, according to Vogel, the firm's managing partner. Vogel saw a different side of Ensign than his Latham colleagues did — a side in which he was more open about his views and more assertive in fighting for them. She said she thinks Ensign moved into political cases because he wanted to do what he believed was right. 'I think he chose a lane that lets him advocate for things that he believes in,' she said. Ensign left the firm in January to join the Trump administration. Vogel said she was sad to see him go, but she understood why he chose the high-profile position. 'He is aligned with this administration 100 percent,' she said. 'I think he believes in it.' Among the controversial positions Ensign has taken on behalf of the administration: He has argued that after the government mistakenly sends someone to a foreign prison, it cannot be required to correct its mistake. He has claimed that if a judge verbally orders the government to do something, the government does not have to do it. He has dismissed a judge's effort to enforce a court order as an unlawful intrusion into the president's authority. A U.S. district judge called his assertions 'stunning' and said that his court filings reflected 'bad faith.' A conservative judge on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals wrote that Ensign's arguments in the Abrego case should be 'shocking' to all Americans' 'intuitive sense of liberty.' Some of his critics think he has gone too far, and that at some point, there will be consequences for him. 'To the extent that Drew Ensign is saying things that are inconsistent with what the facts are, then when the Trump administration is over and he seeks jobs, that will be something that people will raise: 'you misled, you deceived, you withheld information,'' said Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge nominated by President Bill Clinton who teaches at Harvard Law School. And some of his former acquaintances find his actions disgraceful. In April, Ensign attended his law school reunion at NYU, where several classmates, including at least one who counted themself as a friend, told him personally how much they disapproved of his actions, according to a classmate who was there and witnessed one such interaction. 'His law school colleagues were, as far as I saw, uniformly disgusted at how he's been willing to deploy his legal skills on behalf a lawless administration,' the classmate said. (Ensign has argued in court filings that the administration has complied with the law and all court orders.) Most serious is the possibility of contempt or other sanction aimed directly at Ensign. Recently, after Abrego was brought back to the U.S., Abrego's lawyers urged the court to impose penalties for the government's behavior, suggesting civil contempt findings, 'monetary sanctions against government attorneys personally' and prohibiting the government from reimbursing its attorneys. Xinis has not yet ruled on the request. Contempt proceedings aren't the only tool that can be used when a court order is defied. Judges can discipline attorneys for unbecoming conduct, and sanctions can include fines, suspension or disbarment. For Ensign specifically to be held in contempt a court would have to find that he, personally, violated a court order willfully, said NYU Law School professor Rachel Barkow. But Barkow also said that even if someone is held in contempt, Trump could pardon them. For now, Ensign seems willing to risk it.
San Francisco Chronicle
4 days ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
SCOTUS deals huge blow to judges' power to rein in Trump in birthright citizenship case
The Supreme Court, in a victory for the Trump administration, limited the authority of individual federal judges Friday to issue nationwide injunctions against government actions that a judge has found to be illegal. The court deferred action on President Donald Trump's challenge to birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children, including the children of undocumented immigrants. But the decision deals a blow to individual judges' ability to rein in lawless actions by Trump or future presidents. 'Congress has granted federal courts no such power,' Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, wrote in the 6-3 ruling. Since Trump returned to office in January, she said, federal judges have issued about 25 nationwide injunctions against his orders and policies. Friday's ruling, on the last day of the court's 2024-25 term, did not prohibit nationwide injunctions altogether. Instead, Barrett said the orders Trump challenged on birthright citizenship must be blocked until lower courts decide whether they can be narrowed or must be overturned. Three federal judges have issued nationwide injunctions preventing Trump from enforcing his order against birthright citizenship. This follows a trend in recent years of a president's opponents seeking sympathetic judges to issue court orders halting executive actions. During Barack Obama's administration, a federal judge in Texas temporarily blocked the president from telling government agencies that they were legally required to let transgender visitors use restrooms that corresponded with their gender identity. During Trump's first administration, U.S. District Court judges issued injunctions blocking his executive orders that banned U.S. entry from a group of mostly Muslim-majority nations, orders that the Supreme Court eventually upheld after the president narrowed their scope. U.S. District Judge William Orrick III of San Francisco barred the administration from cutting off funding to 'sanctuary cities' that did not allow their police to cooperate with immigration agents, a ruling the Supreme Court upheld. And other judges issued nationwide orders, over Trump's objections, continuing the program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, which allows undocumented immigrants to live and work in the U.S. if they entered the country before age 16, had attended school or served in the military and had no serious criminal record. Although the case began as a challenge by Trump to birthright citizenship, the administration's lawyers asked the court to consider that issue in a future case after lower courts have reviewed it. The Supreme Court agreed. The Constitution's 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868 after the Civil War, grants citizenship to 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' except for children born to foreign diplomats or to soldiers of invading armies. The Trump administration's Justice Department argued that children whose parents were undocumented immigrants or visitors to the U.S. were not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the nation and therefore could be denied citizenship. But California and 18 other states that challenged Trump's action said those children were bound by U.S. laws, including criminal laws, and were clearly under the nation's 'jurisdiction.' They also cited the Supreme Court's 1898 ruling upholding the U.S. citizenship of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to parents who had immigrated from China. In that ruling, a 6-2 court majority said the 14th Amendment 'affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, including all children born here of resident aliens.' The court reaffirmed the decision in a pair of cases in 1982 and 1985 that upheld citizenship for U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants. Trump's nationwide order enforcing his rollback of birthright citizenship has been blocked by federal judges in Washington state, Maryland and Massachusetts in lawsuits by Democratic-controlled states and the city of San Francisco and by immigrant-rights advocates. At the Supreme Court's hearing in May, D. John Sauer, the Justice Department's solicitor general, said the Trump administration would argue against birthright citizenship in lower federal courts before bringing the issue to the high court. Sauer focused instead on challenging the authority of individual federal judges in the citizenship case and others to issue injunctions ordering a nationwide halt to policies the judges considered unconstitutional. That practice 'encourages rampant court-shopping,' Sauer said, arguing that only the individuals who filed the suits should be allowed to benefit from the rulings while they are being appealed. But if that happened, said the states' lawyer, New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum, children and their families would rapidly migrate to states that recognized their citizenship. 'Our country has never allowed citizenship to vary based on the state in which one resides,' he told the court. The cases are Trump v. Casa Inc., No. 24A884; Trump v. Washington, No. 24A885; and Trump v. New Jersey, No. 24A886.
USA Today
4 days ago
- USA Today
Suspect of Minnesota lawmaker shooting to appear in federal court
Vance Boelter, who is accused of shooting two Minnesota lawmakers, faces six federal charges, including multiple counts of murder and stalking. If convicted, he will be eligible for the death penalty. The man accused of shooting two Minnesota lawmakers and their spouses is expected to appear in federal court June 27, where he will face a half dozen criminal charges and possibly the death penalty. After what police have called the largest manhunt in state history, Vance Boelter, 57, was arrested and accused of killing state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, and wounding state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette. Both lawmakers are members of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, and officials have called the killings a targeted "political assassination." According to a 20-page affidavit filed in federal court, Boelter planned extensively for the June 14 attack and wanted to 'kill, injure, harass and intimidate'' more than 45 Minnesota state and federal officials. Prosecutors say he also intended to target several other Midwestern lawmakers. "It is not an exaggeration to say that his crimes are the stuff of nightmares,'' Joseph Thompson, the acting U.S. attorney for Minnesota, said. "Boelter stalked his victims like prey.'' Boelter faces six federal charges, including multiple counts of murder and stalking, making him eligible for the death penalty if convicted. His appearance in court in St. Paul for a combined detention and preliminary hearing comes as Hortman, her husband and their dog are set to lie in state at the Minnesota State Capitol. What happened in Minnesota shootings? Before the attacks, Boelter compiled a list of mostly Democratic state lawmakers and their addresses, disguised his SUV to look like a police squad car, and purchased a silicone mask and a cache of weapons, according to the affidavit. Boelter disguised himself as a law enforcement officer and went to the Hoffmans' home in Champlin, about 20 miles northwest of Minneapolis, around 2 a.m. on June 14, prosecutors say. Boelter opened fire on the couple in what Thompson called a "chilling'' attack captured on video. 'Stuff of nightmares': How investigators say attacks on Minn. lawmakers unfolded Boelter then traveled to two other unnamed lawmakers' homes before going to the Hortmans' house and killing them, according to the affidavit. He allegedly exchanged gunfire with police outside the Hortmans' home before escaping into a wooded area. Authorities eventually tracked Boelter to an area near his family home in Green Isle, Minnesota, about an hour southwest of the Twin Cities. The next day, at 9:10 p.m., Boelter crawled out of a wooded area and surrendered to law enforcement. Who is Vance Boelter? Suspect in Minnesota shootings Boelter's wife told investigators he was a doomsday "prepper" who set aside passports, guns and hordes of cash in the event of a catastrophe, according to a recently unsealed complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Minnesota. At various times, Boelter has claimed to work in the food service industry. In other moments, he's claimed he runs large firms involved with 'security situations' overseas, including Africa, Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Who is Vance Luther Boelter? What to know about the man wanted in the 'assassination' of a Minnesota lawmaker Court documents say Boelter worked at Red Lion, a 'security company and fishing outfit in Congo, Africa.' David Carlson, 59, told Reuters that Boelter worked for an eye donation center near the house they have been sharing in Minneapolis for more than a year. Suspect will also face state charges Boelter is also facing two counts of second-degree intentional murder and two counts of second-degree attempted intentional murder in Minnesota state court. Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty said she plans to obtain a grand jury indictment and upgrade the charges to first-degree murder, which carries a mandatory sentence of life without the possibility of parole. Contributing: Michael Loria, Eduardo Cuevas and Jonathan Limehouse, Christopher Cann, Terry Collins and Jorge L. Ortiz, USA TODAY
