Read Federal Court Complaint Against St. Johns County Commission Chair on Anti-Gay Discrimination on Pride Month Proclamation

Three cheers for Sara Bloomberg and her attorney, Rook Elizabeth Ringer, who filed suit June 3, 2021 against St. Johns County Commission Chairman JEREMIAH RAY BLOCKER and St. Johns County for their violation of Sunshine law and federal constitutional rights.  Is JEREMiAH BLOCKER a bumptious bully and blockhead?  BLOCKER refuses to schedule a Gay Pride Month proclamation, or even a vote on it.   As recently as June 1, 2021, I spoke to Commissioners --  interrupted by Commissioner CHRISTIAN WHITEHURST -- urging BLOCKER to stop violating the rights of GLBTQIA+ people and our families. 

No response. 

Let justice be done.

Bloomberg v. Blocker has been assigned to United States District Chief Judge  Judge Timothy J. Corrigan and Magistrate Judge James R. Klindt. 

Here's the complaint:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

Sara Bloomberg,
Plaintiff,	Case No.: _________________
v.
Jeremiah Ray Blocker, in his personal and professional capacity as the chair of St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners, and as Commissioner for District 4; and the ST. JOHNS COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS;
Defendants.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
 INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF

Plaintiff, SARA BLOOMBERG (hereinafter, the “Plaintiff’), by and through the undersigned counsel and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the United States Constitution, the Florida Constitution, and the Florida Government in the Sunshine Law, Florida Statutes §§ 286.011 and 286.0114, sues Defendants, JEREMIAH RAY BLOCKER, in his personal and professional capacity as Chair of the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners, and the ST. JOHNS COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, (hereinafter collectively, the “Defendants”), and alleges:

1. This action is brought to enforce federal and Florida state laws regarding the Plaintiff’s rights and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief arising from the refusal to allow the discussion of an agenda item in regards to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (hereinafter, “LGBTQ”) community (hereinafter, the “LGBTQ community”) arising from a meeting on May 4, 2021 of the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners and Chairman Jeremiah Ray Blocker’s unlawful violations of federal and Florida state law with respect thereof.
2. Plaintiff’s claims for relief are predicated, in part, on the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 42 U.S.C. § 1988, which authorizes injunctive relief and the award of attorneys’ fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff in actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983.
3. Plaintiffs also seek declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. Plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to Rule 65, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 
4. This action is also brought to enforce Article I, Sections 2, 4, and 24, and Article III, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution, as well as Florida’s Government in the Sunshine Law, §§ 286.011 and 286.0114, Florida Statutes (hereinafter, the “Sunshine Law”).

VENUE AND JURISDICTION

5. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et. seq. because the instant case arises under federal law, specifically under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
6. Also, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 C.S.C. § 1331 for civil actions arising under the laws of the United States; and for actions under laws providing for the protection of civil rights as per 28 U.S.C. § 1343.
7. On this matter, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over claims based in Florida State Law as stated in 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 
8. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b)(2) as the Middle District of Florida is the judicial district in which a substantial portion of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims alleged herein occurred.

PARTIES

9. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff Sara Bloomberg was and is a citizen of this St. Johns County who has standing to bring this action. 
10. Defendant Jeremiah Ray Blocker (hereinafter, “Chairman Blocker” or the “Chair”) was at all times material the Chair of the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners, as well as Commissioner for District 4. 
11. Defendant St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners (hereinafter, the “Board”) was at all times material the governing board of St. Johns County, Florida.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

12. On or about March 8, 2021, the Plaintiff emailed St. Johns County Commissioner Henry Dean regarding a proclamation celebrating, among other things, celebrating LGTBQ civil rights progress and the contributions of LGBTQ individuals to the St. Johns County community (hereinafter, the “LGBTQ Pride Proclamation”).
13. About 30 minutes later Commissioner Henry Dean replied indicating his support for the proposed proclamation and indicated that he would be broaching the Chair and Administrator for the proclamation to be placed on the agenda for consideration before the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners.  
14. Around the 28th of April 2021, the Plaintiff received a phone call from the County stating that Chairman Blocker felt that the proclamation was too “controversial” and “left leaning”, and that the proclamation would not come before the Board for consideration.
15. Chairman Blocker holds beliefs antithetical to the fair and equal protection of LGBTQ Americans and their rights and seeks to impose these beliefs upon St. Johns County residents through his personal power as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners.
16. Further attempts by other individuals to convince Chairman Blocker to at least discuss or bring the measure to a vote have been met with silence.

COUNT I: FREEDOM OF SPEECH

42 U.S.C. § 1983; First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution; and

Article I, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution

17. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 17 above as if fully set forth herein. 
18. By refusing to even publicly hear or put to a vote the Plaintiff’s request for the LGBTQ Pride Proclamation, and by specifically describing the reasoning behind this decision was content-based (i.e., “controversial” and “left-leaning”) the Defendants, acting under color of state law, have deprived the Plaintiff of the rights to freedom of speech in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Article I, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands the following relief:

1. A declaratory judgment that the Defendants violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and Article I, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution, by refusing to hear or allow a public vote on the LGBTQ Pride Proclamation, based upon the content and Chairman Blocker’s personal animus towards the LGBTQ Community;
2. Preliminary and permanent injunctions ordering Defendants to immediately hold a public hearing on the issue of the LGBTQ Pride Proclamation;
3. Nominal monetary relief;
4. An award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and
5. Such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT II: EQUAL PROTECTION

42 U.S.C. § 1983; Fourteenth Amendment

of the United States Constitution; and

Article I, Section 2 of the Florida Constitution

19. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 17 above as if fully set forth herein. 
20. By refusing to even publicly hear or put to a vote the Plaintiff’s request for the LGBTQ Pride Proclamation, and by specifically describing the reasoning behind this decision was content-based (i.e., “controversial” and “left-leaning”) the Defendants, acting under color of state law, have treated the Plaintiff differently from all other similarly situated individuals or organizations because the Plaintiff is a member of the LGBTQ Community and because Chairman Blocker disagrees with the message and content of a pro-LGBTQ proclamation.
21. Notably, the United States Supreme Court, in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020), concluded that discrimination against the LGBTQ Community is discrimination on the basis of sex. See also, Adams by & through Kasper v. Sch. Bd. of St. Johns County, 968 F.3d 1286, 1310 (11th Cir. 2020). 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands the following relief:

1. A declaratory judgment that the Defendants violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and Article I, Section 2 of the Florida Constitution, by refusing to hear or allow a public vote on the LGBTQ Pride Proclamation solely due to the fact that it was being sought by and on behalf of the LGBTQ Community;
2. Preliminary and permanent injunctions ordering Defendants to immediately hold a public hearing on the issue of the LGBTQ Pride Proclamation;
3. Nominal monetary relief;
4. An award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and
5. Such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT III: SUNSHINE LAW

Florida Statute § 286.011;

Article I, Section 24 and Article III, Section 4

of the Florida Constitution

22. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 17 above as if fully set forth herein. 
23. The Florida State Constitution requires that all meetings at which public business is to be transacted or discussed be open and noticed to the public, requiring, where official acts are to be taken or at which public business of such body is to be transacted or discussed, them to be open and noticed as provided in Article III, Section 4(6). Art. I, § 24(b), Fla. Const. 
24. Furthermore, the Florida legislature has further implemented this mandate through the Sunshine Law, which broadly requires all formal municipal action to be taken at a public meeting, as follows: 

All meetings of any board or commission of any state agency or authority or of any agency or authority of any county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision, except as otherwise provided in the Constitution, including meetings with or attended by any person elected to such board or commission, but who has not yet taken office, at which official acts are to be taken are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times, and no resolution, rule, or formal action shall be considered binding except as taken or made at such meeting. The board or commission must provide reasonable notice of all such meetings.

Fla. Stat. § 286.011(1).

25. The purpose of the Sunshine Law is the protection of the public’s right to be present and to be heard during all phases of enactments by governmental boards and commissions, School Bd. 0f Duval Cty. v. Florida Publishing C0., 670 So.2d 99, 101 (Fla. lst DCA 1996), and “to prevent at non-public meetings the crystallization of secret decisions to a point just short of ceremonial acceptance.” See, Monroe County v. Pigeon Key Historical Park, Inc., 647 So.2d 857, 860 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (quoting, Town 0f Palm Beach v. Gradison, 296 So.2d 473 (F1a.1974)).
26. The Sunshine Law was enacted in the public interest to protect the public from "closed door" politics. In addition, it should be construed so as to frustrate all evasive devices. Board 0f Public Instr. Of Broward C0. v. Doran, 224 So.2d 693, 699 (Fla. 1969).
27. In Herrin v. City of Deltona, 121 So. 3d 1094, 1097 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013), the court acknowledged the enactment of section 286.0114, Florida Statutes, stating that the statute "specifically provides, with limited exceptions, that the public be allowed a reasonable opportunity to be heard on a proposition before a board or commission.” 
28. The Office of the Florida Attorney general has even given very specific guidance on this subject, stating:

Given that the Government in the Sunshine Law applies to all meetings of a board or commission at which official acts are to be taken, it would be advisable to adhere to the mandates of section 286.0114, Florida Statutes, when a board or commission is taking official action on a proposition regardless of the formality of the meeting. 

2014 WL 4100151, at *2 (Fla.A.G. Apr. 25, 2014) (internal citations omitted).

29. By making a decision to deny or even publicly hear or put to a vote the Plaintiff’s request for the LGBTQ Pride Proclamation, the Defendants, acting under color of state law, violated Florida Statute § 286.011(1), having made that decision outside of any public meetings.
30. Furthermore, by communicating this decision through a phone call and deliberately avoiding any “paper trail” of this unlawful decision, whether by transcript, video recording, or minutes, the Defendants, acting under color of state law, violated Florida Statute § 286.011(2), by failing to keep proper public records of official decisions.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands the following relief:

1. A declaratory judgment that the Defendants violated Florida Statute § 286.011, and Article I, Section 24 and Article III, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution  by privately refusing to hear or allow a public vote on the LGBTQ Pride Proclamation, by communicating this refusal privately and without any public record or transcript;
2. Preliminary and permanent injunctions ordering Defendants to immediately hold a public hearing on the issue of the LGBTQ Pride Proclamation, and enjoining the Defendants from further violations of the Sunshine Law;
3. Nominal monetary relief;
4. An award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to § 286.011(4), Florida Statutes; and
5. Such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT IV: SUNSHINE LAW

Florida Statute § 286.0114; and Article I, Section 24

of the Florida Constitution

31. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 17 and 24 through 29 above as if fully set forth herein. 
32. Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Defendants violated Art. I, § 24(b) of the Florida Constitution and Florida Statute § 286.0114, by removing the proposed proclamation from the Board agenda and refusing to allow members of the public, or even other commissioners to discuss or vote on it.
33. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to address the Defendants’ violation of Florida Statutes § 286.0114, which required the Committee to afford members of the public a reasonable opportunity to be heard on the LGBTQ Pride Proclamation before taking action on same.
34. Section 286.0114(2) requires that “[m]embers of the public shall be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard on a proposition before a board or commission.”

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands the following relief:

1. A declaratory judgment that the Defendants violated Florida Statute § 286.0114, and Article I, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution by privately refusing the public a reasonable opportunity to be heard on the issue of the LGBTQ Pride Proclamation;
2. Preliminary and permanent injunctions ordering Defendants to immediately hold a public hearing on the issue of the LGBTQ Pride Proclamation, and enjoining the Defendants from further violations of the Sunshine Law;
3. Nominal monetary relief;
4. An award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to § 286.0114(7)(a), Florida Statutes; and
5. Such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT V: VIOLATION OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RULES

Rule 4.303

35. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 17 above as if fully set forth herein. 
36. The Rules and Policies of the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners (Hereinafter, the “Rules”) vests governmental and legislative authority of the county in the Board, consisting of a Chair, Vice-Chair and three Commissioners. 
37. The Rules provide for the chair to set a proposed agenda and provides other policy mechanisms by which other commissioners can propose and add agenda items with a majority vote of the Board. 
38. According to Rule 4.303 of the Board’s Board Rules and Policies:

Changes to the Regular Agenda may be proposed by any Commissioner, the County Administrator or the County Attorney. Changes to the Regular Agenda must be approved by majority vote.

39. Essentially, if a commissioner wishes to have an item on the agenda, the Board should take a vote and a majority vote in favor would add the proposed item to the current meeting agenda.
40. While the Court should never usurp the discretionary decisions of elected officials, it is certainly within the Court’s power to compel the Board to follow its own ordinances and adopted procedures. This is especially true when a decision purportedly within the scope of that discretionary authority violates or potentially runs contrary to existing law.
41. Upon determining that the Defendants violated this section, the Court should assess reasonable attorneys’ fees against the Defendants. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands the following relief:

1. A declaratory judgment that the Defendants violated Rule 4.303 of the Board’s Board Rules and Policies by privately refusing to hear or allow a public vote on the LGBTQ Pride Proclamation;
2. Preliminary and permanent injunctions ordering Defendants to immediately hold a public hearing on the issue of the LGBTQ Pride Proclamation, compelling the Defendants to take an official vote as prescribed by its bylaws where the majority passage would result in the debate, public comment, and a vote on potential adoption, and enjoining the Defendants from further violations of the Sunshine Law;
3. Nominal monetary relief;
4. An award of attorney’s fees and costs; and
5. Such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all triable matters of the instant case.

Respectfully Submitted,

 

Dated: June 3, 2021

ROOK ELIZABETH RINGER, ESQ.

Florida Bar No. 1015698

LENTO LAW GROUP, P.A.

222 San Marco Ave., Ste. C

St. Augustine, FL 32084 904.602.9400 (Office)

904.299.5400 (Fax)

reringer@lentolawgroup.com 

Attorney for Plaintiff