Whistleblowers
Judge rejects Mahoning County prosecutor Paul Gains's effort to avoid civil liability for alleged...
August 21, 2018
Thursday, May 1, 2025
Surveillance footage of Judge Leslie Ann Celebrezze and the receiver she regularly appointed—kissing on the lips.
CLEVELAND, OH — Today, the Eighth District Court of Appeals of Ohio reversed the trial court’s dismissal of former judicial assistant Georgeanna Semary’s whistleblower-retaliation and witness-intimidation lawsuit against Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Judge Leslie Ann Celebrezze.
The appellate court ruled that the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas erred in dismissing Semary’s amended complaint, which alleges that Judge Celebrezze retaliated against and intimidated her after she became a witness to the judge’s alleged long-running extramarital affair with court-appointed receiver Mark Dottore—and provided open-court records to a journalist investigating the matter.
The appeals court found that Semary’s amended complaint meets Ohio’s notice-pleading standard, rejecting the trial court’s application of a higher bar. The court emphasized that “Appellant was not required to use any technical form of pleading” and that the amended complaint contained “more particularity than the trial court acknowledged.” So the court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Semary’s lawsuit alleges she was punished after allowing a journalist from The Marshall Project to review a case file that was not confidential or sealed. Days after her cooperation, Semary was formally disciplined, demoted, and ultimately had her salary slashed by nearly $20,000. Following these escalating retaliatory acts and an increasingly hostile work environment, Semary was forced to resign from her longtime position.
Semary brought claims under R.C. 2307.60, which allows for civil recovery by victims of criminal acts. Her lawsuit alleges retaliation and intimidation in violation of Ohio and federal law, including violations of witness-protection and honest-services statutes. The trial court had dismissed these claims, requiring a level of factual specificity the appellate court found unjustified.
The Court of Appeals held that, "Construing the allegations in Appellant’s Amended Complaint as true and in her favor, this court cannot say Appellant can prove no set of facts that would entitle her to relief."
The appellate court also pointed out that Judge Celebrezze had filed answers to both the original and amended complaints, showing she was fully able to understand and respond to the allegations—contradicting the trial court’s view that the pleading was deficient.
Subodh Chandra, Semary's lead counsel, commented:
This appellate decision is a victory for truth-telling public servants like Ms. Semary, who should be protected—not punished—for refusing to cover up alleged judicial corruption. The trial court erected a baseless and unjustified barrier to her pursuit of justice, and we are grateful the Court of Appeals reinstated her case.
The decision now sends the case back to the trial court for further proceedings, where Semary seeks compensatory damages and other relief for the harm caused by Judge Celebrezze’s alleged retaliation.
The appeals court decision in Semary v. Celebrezze, 8th District Case No. 114219, can be found here. The 11th District Court of Appeals sat by designation for the 8th District, after all of the 8th District judges recused themselves from hearing a case involving a fellow Cuyahoga County judge.
On the eve of the oral argument before the 8th District, Celebrezze admitted to the Supreme Court of Ohio's Board of Professional Conduct that she engaged in judicial misconduct regarding her relationship with and appointments of Dottore and that she lied to the Court's Disciplinary Counsel.
Just days after oral argument, to avoid further questioning about the matter in a hearing before that Board, Celebrezze also invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. An FBI criminal investigation of Celebrezze is pending, with federal grand-jury subpoenas having been issued. That case is Disciplinary Counsel v. Celebrezze, 2024-024, and the Board is expected to recommend discipline to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
At Chandra Law, your case is our cause.®
The Chandra Law Firm LLC is solely responsible for the content of this website.
©2025 The Chandra Law Firm LLC.