Robol v. Columbus
2025 Ohio 973
Ohio Ct. App.2025Background
- Charles Robol filed suit against the City of Columbus and several city officials, challenging their implementation and enforcement of COVID-19 policies from July 2020 to December 2021.
- Robol’s amended complaint separated events into four groups, alleging various tort and constitutional violations, primarily centered on mask mandates, exclusion from city events, and supposed disparate or retaliatory treatment.
- He sought injunctive and monetary relief exceeding $13 billion and various other remedies, such as apologies and attorney fees.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that many claims were time-barred or defective on legal and factual grounds, and that both the City and individual defendants were immune under Ohio law.
- On appeal, Robol argued errors concerning the statute of limitations, standing, religious discrimination, First Amendment violations, due process, alleged discovery abuses, and denial of judicial notice for new evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of Limitations (Event Group 1 claims) | Claims should be equitably tolled due to his reasonable filing delay | Actions filed after 2-year limit; no extraordinary circumstances | Claims barred; equitable tolling inapplicable; voluntary delay not exceptional |
| Immunity (Tort & Intentional Tort Claims) | City acted outside governmental scope; employees acted recklessly | City acted within governmental function; no reckless conduct | City and individuals immune under R.C. Chapter 2744; no genuine issue of fact |
| First Amendment & Religious Claims | Mask mandate burdened religious beliefs and expression | Policy was neutral, generally applicable, not religiously targeted | Policy was content-neutral, generally applicable; no substantial burden shown |
| Due Process & Takings Clause | COVID policies deprived liberty/property without due process | No fundamental right implicated; Takings Clause applies to property, not person | No violation; face mask rules rationally related to public health, not a taking |
| Discovery Disputes | Ruling on summary judgment was premature due to incomplete discovery | Plaintiff failed to seek relief via Civ.R. 56(F) | No abuse of discretion; motion to compel was implicitly denied, no prejudice |
| Judicial Notice (Congressional Report) | Report undermines government basis for COVID rules and should be considered | Not before trial court; facts are disputable and irrelevant | Judicial notice denied; report not relevant to issues on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (statute of limitations for federal civil rights claims borrows state limitations for personal injury)
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (government policies must be neutral and generally applicable in free exercise analysis)
- Emp. Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (free exercise claims fail where government act is neutral and generally applicable)
- Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (content-based speech regulations subject to strict scrutiny)
- Perry Edn. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn., 460 U.S. 37 (public forum doctrine for government-controlled properties)
- Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Edn. Fund, 473 U.S. 788 (restrictions in non-public fora must be reasonable and viewpoint-neutral)
- Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. 14 (pandemic response as compelling government interest)