A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit that Hamilton County's former chief deputy, Mark Schoonover, filed against Sheriff Charmaine McGuffey and the county, ruling that the sheriff had broad legal authority to remove him from his post after taking office in January 2021. Schoonover's attorney filed a notice of appeal on Tuesday, sending the dispute to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
U.S. District Court Judge Matthew W. McFarland granted summary judgment to Hamilton County and McGuffey on September 25, entering judgment on Schoonover's federal retaliation and sex discrimination claims while dismissing his state-law claims without prejudice, according to court records. The case, filed under case number 1:22-cv-767, had accused McGuffey of wrongful termination, discrimination and retaliation after she fired Schoonover when she took office, as FOX19 reported.
Why the Judge Sided With the Sheriff
In his ruling, McFarland found that because the chief deputy position is a high-level policymaking and confidential advisory role, the First Amendment's Pickering balancing test favors the government's interest in organizational alignment — meaning an elected sheriff is entitled to choose her own top deputy, per VitalLaw's coverage of the decision. The court also determined that the chief deputy role falls within Title VII's personal staff exemption, which excludes an elected official's immediate advisors and policymakers from certain federal employment discrimination protections, the same report notes.
McFarland separately ruled that Schoonover failed to show a causal connection between his 2019 deposition testimony and McGuffey's decision to revoke his special deputy status in March 2021, according to the same account. Schoonover's lawsuit had claimed that both his January 2021 removal as chief deputy and his March 12, 2021 firing as a special deputy were retaliation for that 2019 testimony, which he gave in support of McGuffey during her own wrongful termination lawsuit stemming from her 2017 firing, FOX19 reported.
A Four-Decade Career and a Reversal of Fortune
Schoonover joined the Hamilton County Sheriff's Office in 1981, working in corrections and patrol before former Sheriff Jim Neil appointed him chief deputy in January 2013, a post in which he managed daily operations and supervised more than 900 employees, according to court filings cited by VitalLaw. His lawsuit traces back to a 2017 Internal Affairs investigation, after which Schoonover recommended McGuffey's termination — a decision that set off years of legal and political fallout, the VitalLaw report states.
McGuffey had been promoted in 2013 as the first female major in the sheriff's office's history, commanding Court and Jail Services until Neil and Schoonover fired her in 2017, according to the Cincinnati Business Courier. She then sued Hamilton County and Neil in 2018, alleging sex and sexual-orientation discrimination along with retaliation for raising concerns about inmate excessive force; the Hamilton County Board of Commissioners approved a $212,500 settlement in December 2020, just before McGuffey took office, the Business Courier reported.
A Political Rivalry That Shaped the Office
McGuffey's rise to sheriff came directly at Neil's expense. She defeated her former boss in the April 2020 Democratic primary with 70% of the vote and went on to win the general election, then beat Neil a second time in November 2024 when he ran against her as a Republican, this time with 56.2% of the vote, according to Ballotpedia. That electoral history set the stage for Schoonover's removal once McGuffey took office on January 4, 2021, replacing the leadership team that had fired her years earlier.
Judge McFarland, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, issued the summary judgment ruling that closed out the federal claims in September, per FOX19. Attorney David Torchia of the Cincinnati firm Tobias & Torchia filed the notice of appeal on behalf of Schoonover on Tuesday, seeking review by the Sixth Circuit, according to court docket records. FOX19 reported that it reached out to all parties for comment on the ruling.
The appeal now puts the question of whether the chief deputy's role deserves the same policymaking protections the district court granted it before the Sixth Circuit, with no timeline yet set for how the appellate court will proceed.
