A lawnmower trade-in, threats of prosecution, and a resignation he says was forced
A former Ohio facilities director says his employer stripped his duties during medical leave, then pushed him out with an investigation he calls retaliation.
The plaintiff climbed the ranks at Akron Public Schools, moving from small engine repairer to Director of Facilities Services under a renewed contract paying $124,278.28. On July 10, 2026, he sued the district, its board, and more than a dozen current and former officials in the US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
For anyone who runs an HR function, the complaint hits two familiar nerves: leave that overlaps with a reorganization, and a discrimination charge followed by a fresh investigation.
Plaintiff says the trouble started when he took approved leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) in November 2024 to care for his spouse after major surgery. According to the complaint, the district quickly began peeling away his role. His oversight of a division of about 300 employees was handed off, his office became a cubicle, and his access to district email and financial systems was shut off two days after he complained about the changes.
The complaint says an outside law firm the district hired later completed an investigation, and it alleges the resulting report found the then-superintendent had retaliated against the plaintiff over a letter he sent the board in November 2024. That superintendent was placed on administrative leave in April 2025 and resigned shortly afterward, the filing states.
Even so, the plaintiff alleges, his job never came back. He says the board and the incoming superintendent left his duties, access, and authority stripped. He filed two charges with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, which were transferred to the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
Then the case takes an unusual turn. The complaint describes a lawnmower trade-in deal between the district and an outside equipment company, which it characterizes as a legitimate arms-length transaction. It alleges that while the EEOC was reviewing his charges, district leaders opened a parallel investigation into the plaintiff and the trade-in. According to the filing, the district's chief of staff raised that mowers traded to the company had appeared on Facebook Marketplace, including on the plaintiff's own account. The plaintiff calls the timing deliberate - a selective response, he says, to his protected complaints.
According to the filing, a board president threatened or implied she would involve the police, the prosecutor's office, the IRS, and the state auditor, and district officials threatened or implied criminal charges if he refused to quit. He resigned in September 2025, which the complaint casts as a constructive discharge - a resignation the law can treat as a firing when the workplace is made unbearable.
The plaintiff, a man, also alleges sex discrimination. He says female supervisors told him he was "too young" and "not experienced enough," and that a mostly female leadership team treated him unequally.
A defamation claim rounds out the case. The plaintiff alleges the board told the media he took "advantage of the system," and that the remarks cost him job offers he was close to landing.
The practical read for HR is a short list of do-not-trip wires: keep job duties intact during FMLA leave, steer clear of moves that look like retaliation after a charge lands, paper the genuine reasons behind any parallel investigation, and be cautious about anything said publicly about someone on the way out. The plaintiff's claims cover FMLA interference and retaliation, Title VII sex discrimination and retaliation, breach of contract, and defamation.
None of the allegations have been tested, and no court has ruled on any of the claims.
