Lane County officials ask judge to toss out parts of Loveall’s lawsuit 

Lane County officials are asking a federal judge to toss out parts of Commissioner David Loveall’s lawsuit against the county. 

In his lawsuit, filed in March, Loveall contends his due process and religious rights were violated in the events leading up to three county commissioners’ vote to censure him.

He also alleges three of the five county commissioners — Pat Farr, Laurie Trieger and Heather Buch — violated the state’s open meetings law in the March censure vote.

Loveall’s lawsuit has five claims: that his First Amendment free speech rights were violated, that his religious rights were violated, that he was the victim of retaliation, that his rights to due process were violated and that the commissioners violated the state’s open meetings law.

In court motions filed Friday, May 29, Clifford Davidson, the private Portland-based attorney representing Lane County, the three commissioners and County Administrator Steve Mokrohisky, asked the judge to dismiss Loveall’s claim that his due process rights were violated, and his claim that commissioners violated the Oregon Public Meetings Law. 

“This lawsuit is the direct result of the County, its Administrator, and its Commissioners investigating complaints made against Plaintiff, not of a violation of the Constitution or Oregon law,” the motion to dismiss states.

The motion recounts Loveall’s actions that led to his censure vote, including his conversation in June 2025 with Mokrohisky in which, according to court records, he said: “Tell the employees to f— off, commissioners can do what they want, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.” 

That came after employees filed complaints with human resources about Loveall, including that he said a community member moved her hands like a stripper and signed an employee’s birthday card with “blessings” and encouraged the worker to keep doing “kingdom work” — a religious phrase that made the person uncomfortable. Loveall has said the “stripper” comment did not originate with him.

After complaints were filed with human resources, Loveall’s office hours were reduced as part of a safety plan for one of the employees involved. That’s part of his lawsuit, but the county disagrees with Loveall’s contention that it harms his rights.

“Plaintiff cites no source of entitlement to use a physical office whenever he wishes and undersigned counsel has not located any authority or policy creating such entitlement,” the motion states. “It seems unlikely that Plaintiff could point to an entitlement of constitutional significance given that not even a complete deprivation of the right to hold public office rises to the level of a due process violation.”

As for Loveall’s allegation of an open meeting violation, the motion says the purpose of public meetings is to ensure the public is aware of deliberations of government bodies, not to “entitle public officials to specific proceedings.” The motion adds that even if that were the case, it’s “not a constitutionally recognized liberty or property interest.”

The motion also says the defendants have qualified immunity and that Loveall’s rights were not violated because unlike employees who are terminated, he was not fired. 

In a separate motion, Buch, Trieger and Farr ask a judge to throw out the claim alleging violations of the state’s public meetings law because the actions and statements in question all center around board meetings — both public and in closed executive sessions. As such, the motion is based on Oregon’s Oregon’s anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute, which allows dismissal of lawsuits stemming from protected free speech activities. 

The case is still in the discovery phase, which is due for completion by July 21. 

Since the censure vote and the filing of the lawsuit, Loveall has lost his bid for reelection to Springfield Mayor Sean VanGordon, who will take office in January.