Trying to add a payment method? You can do this on the 
QuickTake:
Lane County Commissioner David Loveall’s lawsuit against the county alleges he faced violations of his free speech, due process and free exercise of religion, as well as retaliation, in the events leading up to the board’s vote to censure him.
Lane County Commissioner David Loveall is taking the county, its administrator and three of his fellow commissioners to court.
Loveall filed a federal lawsuit Thursday, March 19, that seeks to reverse the board’s March 3 vote to censure him. The lawsuit alleges the county violated his constitutional rights to freedom of speech and religious expression, all without due process or following the state’s open meetings laws.
Before the censure vote, Loveall had faced complaints filed with the county’s human resources department. Then, an outside investigation found he had retaliated against staffers, including County Administrator Steve Mokrohisky. For instance, the investigation found that Loveall went into Mokrohisky’s office and told him to stop the complaints and “tell the employees to f— off” and threatened Mokrohisky’s job.
Loveall’s lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Eugene, alleges the investigation was flawed because its findings of retaliation all stemmed from things related to his exercise of speech.
“Plaintiff brings this lawsuit in order to protect his constitutional right to free speech, right to free exercise of religion, right to due process, right to be free from retaliation, and to enforce Oregon’s Public Meetings Law,” the lawsuit says.
Those underlying complaints from county staffers about Loveall included his using religious language that included “blessings” and “kingdom work” when signing a birthday card and using the word “stripper” to describe a community member. Loveall has said the “stripper” phrase didn’t originate with him.
The lawsuit also names as defendants the three commissioners who voted to censure him: Heather Buch, Pat Farr and Laurie Trieger. Commissioner Ryan Ceniga voted against the censure and Loveall abstained from the vote.
The lawsuit also alleges the commissioners violated the state’s open meeting law because the censure vote was not listed on the meeting agenda.
Devon Ashbridge, a county spokesperson, said Lane County doesn’t comment on pending litigation.
Loveall is running for reelection in May for a second four-year term in his district, which covers Springfield.
Reached for comment, Loveall said he could not answer questions, citing his attorney’s advice.
‘Falsely accused’
Loveall’s 35-page lawsuit is a vigorous attempt to lay out his side of the story. The filing comes exactly two months before the May 19 elections, when Loveall is running for a second four-year term in his district, which covers Springfield.
Throughout the filing, Loveall defends himself and alleges the county’s outside investigation into him was skewed, with Mokrohiskyretaining “supervisory authority over the investigation and the special county counsel who oversaw the investigation.”
Loveall alleged statements he made, whether publicly on a podcast or to county staffers, were miscast as retaliation.
“Throughout the investigation, whenever Plaintiff spoke publicly in defense of himself, he was accused of retaliation, which formed the basis of additional complaints against him,” the lawsuit says. “Plaintiff was instructed to not defend himself, even though Plaintiff was running for reelection and the allegations against him were publicly released by the County and had been reprinted in the newspaper.”
Loveall also alleged Mokrohisky attempted to revive matters that were previously resolved, such as a county employee who alleged in a human resources complaint that Loveall described a community member as a “stripper on a strip pole.”
In the lawsuit, Loveall said he met with that county employee in June 2025, after the complaint was filed, and explained the comment came from someone other than him. The employee reported to human resources that there was “closure” to the concerns, the lawsuit says.
“Plaintiff was also falsely accused of describing a woman as ‘looking like a stripper,’” the lawsuit says.
Loveall’s lawsuit also defended the low ranking he gave Mokrohisky in his job evaluation, saying it fell in line with prior evaluations and was not retaliation.
Loveall’s lawsuit also took issue with how the county handled public records requests from Lookout Eugene-Springfield. When Mokrohisky wrote a Sept. 4, 2025 email to Loveall with concerns, the county released the document in its entirety to Lookout.
“Within hours of Defendant Mokrohisky’s email being sent, a public records request just happened to be made for the email,” the lawsuit says. “The County provided it immediately and unredacted. Upon information and belief, Defendant Mokrohisky instructed that his email be released unredacted. A newspaper published Defendant Mokrohisky’s scathing email about Plaintiff in full.”
But Loveall’s response to the administrator, also released, had redactions that “prevented the public from seeing Plaintiff’s response to numerous allegations,” the lawsuit says.
The lawsuit seeks a declaration that Loveall’s constitutional rights were violated, that commissioners violated Oregon’s open meetings law and an injunction that ends Loveall’s “safety plan” and voids the censure.
The county put Loveall on a “safety plan” after he defended himself on a podcast regarding a complaint about how he signed an employee’s birthday card. That employee complained after the podcast comments, which didn’t identify the worker. The safety plan, still in place, prohibits him from accessing his county office on Monday and Thursday, the lawsuit says.
Loveall also seeks an order that the commissioners who voted to censure him violated the open meetings law with “willful misconduct,” and are liable for attorney fees and costs awarded to the county.
As the lawsuit works its way through the court system, the election campaign will continue. The censure vote is the equivalent of a public rebuke — it cannot remove Loveall from office. Voters can decide whether to support Loveall or other candidates.
The day before the lawsuit was filed, Loveall hinted at something ahead on Facebook: “More sign hanging and great conversations with Springfielders! Loveall for all! My voting record proves this. Don’t let the headlines fool you into believing the attack to influence the election. The story is about to change dramatically … stay tuned!”
Have something to say?
Send us a Letter to the Editor. Read our guidelines for Letters to the Editor here.