Youngstown, OH – Today, demolition-and-excavating contractor Rudzik Excavating, Inc., of Struthers, Ohio filed a federal civil-rights lawsuit [amended 1/3/25] for First Amendment retaliation against Mahoning County and several officials, including Commissioners David Ditzler, Carol Rimedio-Righetti, and Anthony Traficanti, and Prosecutor Gina DeGenova. The suit included claims for civil liability for criminal acts.

The suit alleges retaliation by these defendants against the company because of statements by the company’s officials opposing the county’s use of project labor agreements on certain projects. Such agreements exist between construction unions and construction employers (contractors/project owners) establishing the terms and conditions of employment for specific construction projects. Rudzik was concerned that they make projects too expensive for taxpayers.

The [amended] suit alleges as follows.

In the spring of 2024, Mahoning County advertised for two construction projects. After receiving the bid documents, which include project labor agreements, Rudzik Excavating protested the inclusion of those agreements. Its representatives appeared on local-radio talk shows and the television news, and also attended several weekly commissioners' meetings and spoke during the public comment portion.

After weeks of protesting, representatives of several local unions attended a commissioners' meeting and confirmed that the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018 had previously deemed unconstitutional certain portions of the types of project labor agreement used Mahoning County used on both projects. Mahoning County couldn’t explain why it was using the unconstitutional project labor agreement and amended the bid documents to include a revised project labor agreement.

Rudzik Excavating continued to protest the inclusion of the project labor agreements and refused to sign them. Rudzik Excavating was the low bidder on both projects, but Mahoning County deemed its bids to be “nonresponsive” because Rudzik Excavating did not execute the agreements. Mahoning County rejected Rudzik Excavating's bids and awarded the contract to another bidder.

By law, under Ohio Revised Code § 307.90, “The bond or bid guaranty of all unsuccessful bidders shall be returned to them by the contracting authority immediately upon awarding the contract or rejection of all bids.” Because Rudzik Excavating was the “unsuccessful bidder,” Mahoning County should have “immediately” returned the bid bonds to Rudzik Excavating.

Instead, Mahoning County issued two letters to Rudzik Excavating’s surety companies demanding payment of the bid bonds. The complaint alleges the demand letters contained false and fraudulent statements and the demand was unlawful.

This is not the first time Rudzik Excavating was a low bidder on a Mahoning County project, but had its bids deemed “nonresponsive” because it did not execute the project labor agreement. But, in those prior instances, Mahoning County rightly returned the bid bonds. Only now, after Rudzik Excavating engaged in protected First Amendment speech by publicly protesting the project labor agreement, has Mahoning County retaliated by seeking forfeiture of the bid bonds.

The complaint states claims for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (First Amendment retaliation) and civil liability for criminal acts, including intimidation, tampering with records, tampering with evidence, mail fraud, attempted theft, falsification, interference with civil and statutory rights, and dereliction of duties, as well as an alternative claim for breach of contract.

One of Rudzik's attorneys, Subodh Chandra, said, "Regardless about how one feels about project labor agreements, when Rudzik officials spoke their minds publicly about them, they were speaking out about matters of public concern. County officials had no right to retaliate against the company for exercising free-speech rights by demanding money from the surety-bond company and otherwise trying to ruin the company's good name."

Rudzik Excavating is being represented by Subodh Chandra and co-counsel Attorney Martin Desmond.

Chandra and Desmond previously represented Ricky Morrison in a First Amendment–retaliation suit against many of these same officials. That resulted in a $175,000 settlement.

The suit is captioned Rudzik Excavating v. Mahoning County, et al., N.D. Ohio Case No. 4:24-cv-1876 and is assigned to Judge Benita Y. Pearson. The complaint [as amended on 1/3/25] and exhibits may be found here.

Chandra Law represents victims of employment retaliation who engaged in legally protected activity, including First Amendment–protected activity. Chandra Law’s DeCrane v. Eckart, et al. case is the leading Sixth Circuit opinion rounding up First Amendment–retaliation case law in the Sixth Circuit, and Chandra Law’s successful Buddenberg v. Weisdack Sixth Circuit case is also frequently invoked and cited for the proposition that defense lawyers cannot participate in retaliation.

If you have a First Amendment–retaliation, employment–retaliation, or other civil-rights claim, you may use our secure contact form. But please first study what retaliation the law recognizes.

At Chandra Law, your case is our cause.®