Jillian is a member of the firm’s Professional Liability Department where she focuses her practice across a broad spectrum of professional liability matters, including but not limited to, the defense of municipalities and their employees, non profit directors and officers, real estate professionals, insurance agents and brokers, and employers. She has practiced in both state and federal courts, handles appeals, and has argued before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Jillian has been defending municipalities and their employees since 2013 and she has continued this practice with Marshall Dennehey, now leading the Cleveland office’s professional liability practice. Although varied, Jillian’s public-sector liability practice focuses on police practices, sovereign immunity issues as well as labor and employment claims. Her employment practice extends to private employers, defending claims before the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, the EEOC, Ohio and federal courts regarding discrimination, harassment and retaliation, including claims brought pursuant to Title VII, the ADA, ADEA, the FMLA, trade secret litigation, whistleblower actions, housing discrimination and related tort claims.
In her real estate work, Jillian has a strong track record of obtaining favorable results for real estate agents, real estate brokers, title agents, and home inspectors in cases brought against them related to alleged negligence, misrepresentation, disclosure errors, and contract disputes. Jillian also concentrates her practice on D&O liability defending condominium and homeowners associations, as well as their directors, officers, and property managers, in matters involving alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, declaration disputes, real property document issues, and FHA, HUD and Fair Housing claims. Additionally, she routinely defends insurance agents and brokers and miscellaneous professionals in matters pertaining to negligence, errors and omissions. Jillian also has lived experience in non-profit D&O liability as a volunteer president of the board to a local community development corporation.
Further, Jillian’s practice extends to privacy and data breach matters, where she helps clients manage cyber risk and navigate incident response, containment, and compliance obligations. She also has experience defending corporate and individual insureds in product liability, construction, premises liability, and personal injury claims.
A native of New York’s Finger Lakes region, Jillian earned her Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science from SUNY Albany. She received her juris doctor from Case Western Reserve University School of Law, where she launched her litigation career as an award winning student in the Criminal Defense Clinic. Before joining the firm in 2017, she gained valuable public sector experience as a judicial staff attorney and assistant director of law—skills she continues to draw upon in her advocacy for political subdivision clients.
Outside the office, Jillian can often be found enjoying live music or exploring the Cleveland MetroParks with her husband and their dogs.
Results
Successfully Defended a Suburban Mayor in a Defamation Case
We successfully defended an appeal of a trial court decision dismissing a defamation claim against a suburban mayor. The plaintiff, a former police officer, brought actions against a former city mayor and related defendants, asserting defamation, false light and related claims. The plaintiff alleged that statements made during a press conference disparaged him and violated a non-disparagement clause in his separation agreement. The court ruled the defamation and false light claims were correctly barred by the one-year statute of limitations under R.C. 2305.11(A) where the saving statute, R.C. 2305.19(A), permitted refiling in federal court, but did not toll limitations for subsequent state filings after the federal court dismissal. The appellate court also found the former mayor’s statements, regarding police leaders who allegedly retaliated against her, were deemed truthful and, thus, not defamatory or disparaging.
Summary Judgment Won in Slip and Fall Case Involving a Large Supermarket Chain
We won summary judgment in Franklin County, Ohio, for a large supermarket chain in a slip-and-fall case. The plaintiff alleged he slipped and fell in the parking lot on ice that remained more than two days after the most recent snow fall and after the lot had been plowed and salted by a co-defendant. The plaintiff’s expert opined that no amount of remaining snow or ice is acceptable and that the standard of care according to the Ohio Building Code requires complete removal in order to maintain a “slip-resistant” surface. However, in Ohio, a premises owner is not liable for natural accumulations of snow and ice because persons are expected to appreciate the danger. The plaintiff’s expert did not opine as to what the defendants should have done, other than to completely remove the snow and ice. The court struck the plaintiff’s expert’s untested opinion as being unhelpful to a jury and found that the Ohio Building Code did not apply to the plaintiff’s pleadings without a claim for negligence per se. In disregarding the expert opinions, the court also found that the remaining snow and ice was “natural,” even though there had been attempted removal.
Thought Leadership
Case Law Alerts
Two Tracks, No Preclusion: Ohio Supreme Court Preserves Separate Damages Claims After Chapter 2506 Appeals
November 3, 2026
The Supreme Court of Ohio has clarified that an administrative appeal under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2506 does not bar a separate action for damages and declaratory relief that could not have been pursued in the administrative appeal. The Ohio Supreme Court considered Sheetz, Inc. v. Centerville (2026-Ohio-3531) as a result of a certified question from the Southern District of Ohio. The question was whether Sheetz, the gas station/convenience store brand, was barred from seeking damages in a separate action since damages were not sought in their administrative appeal. Ultimately, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that res judicata does not bar a separate action for damages after ruling on an administrative appeal because R.C. Chapter 2506 is limited to judicial review and cannot grant affirmative relief. The case arose after Centerville’s city council rejected a site plan proposed by Sheetz, Inc. that had received unanimous approval from the City’s planning commission. Sheetz filed an administrative appeal pursuant to R.C. 2506 in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, and two months later filed a complaint for damages and declaratory relief under 42 USC § 1983 as a takings action with the city, city council, and other objectors as improper takings and a violation of due process, as well as interference with business and contractual relationship. The city and city council removed the § 1983 action for damages to federal court. Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas reversed the city council’s denial, and allowed the Sheetz project to move forward. Upon that ruling, the federal court issued a show-cause order questioning whether the § 1983 action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata via claim preclusion (which includes all theories of recovery). Sheetz argued that Ohio courts of common pleas do not have authority to award damages or declaratory relief as party of the R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal, therefore res judicata could not be triggered to apply to the § 1983 action. Additionally, Sheetz moved to certify the issue to the Ohio Supreme Court, citing differing results between the second and sixth districts on this same issue. Centerville approached the question, not from a claim preclusion standpoint, but from the holding in Grava v. Parkman, Twp which states that a final judgment rendered on the merits bars all subsequent action based on the same transaction or occurrence. In yet another approach, an objector argued that claim preclusion was satisfied because Sheetz could have raised its damages claims in the administrative appeal – Sheetz disagrees. In their analysis, the Supreme Court of Ohio broke down the elements of a claim preclusion analysis: 1) a prior final, valid decision on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) a second action involving the same parties, or their privies, as the first; (3) a second action raising claims that were or could have been litigated in the first action; and (4) a second action arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action. The Court held that R.C. Ch. 2506 does not permit a party to argue damages as R.C. Ch. 2506 limits the common pleas jurisdiction as if it were sitting on appeal, and therefore can only affirm, reverse, vacate, or modify the appealed order, or can remand the case to the administrative body. Further, the Court held that Grava’s conclusion that a final judgment precludes additional litigation for different relief is inapplicable under this fact pattern because it was meant only to apply to those matters in which the plaintiff brings the exact same case twice, but for new relief. The Court found Grava was inapplicable because Sheetz could have requested damages or declaratory relief in the R.C. 2506 appeal. Therefore, Grava would be nothing more than dicta if it even did apply. Going further, the Ohio Supreme Court disavowed Sixth Circuit precedent which, in reliance on Grava and other district court decisions, permitted an owner to seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alongside an administrative appeal. See Moore v Hiram Twp., 988 F.3d 353 (6th Cir.2021). The Ohio Supreme Court found that the Sixth Circuit had disregarded a critical decision in Community Concerned Citizens, Inc. v. Union Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 1993-Ohio-115, which clearly held that a R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal cannot be combined with a complaint seeking other claims for relief. Id. at ¶ 11. To that end, the Ohio Supreme Court has determined that the decisions Moore relied on (outside of Grava) are no longer good law, and that Moore was wrongly decided. The decision draws a clear procedural boundary: Chapter 2506 provides judicial review of an administrative decision, not a forum for independent claims seeking affirmative relief. Although Grava may place claims arising from a single transaction within the potential scope of claim preclusion, those claims are not barred unless the complete claim-preclusion test is satisfied. Because Sheetz could not have pursued damages or declaratory relief in its Chapter 2506 appeal, the separate action was not precluded. The remaining question for practitioners looking to apply or defend against this exception is when does the statute of limitations begin to run on damages and declaratory relief claims related to an administrative decision on appeal? A takings action in federal court has a 2-year statute of limitations, or as a state claim, 4 years (like the other tortious claims raised therein). Correlating this case with others, an administrative appeal will not likely toll the statute of limitations on claims based on a final decision by a municipal authority. Therefore, practitioners should look for these cases to be brought simultaneously.
Case Law Alerts
Sixth Circuit Recognizes Heckler’s Veto Theory in Limited Public Forum
July 21, 2026
The Sixth Circuit reversed the Southern District of Ohio and ordered the district court to grant a preliminary injunction finding a strong likelihood of success on the merits of the plaintiff’s free speech claim related to an attempted public comment at a school board meeting. The plaintiff began to offer public comment by reading a written statement at a school board meeting when the board president cut off the microphone and put the meeting into recess. The board’s reaction followed a comment that the school district was failing and that the superintendent was a coward for not addressing critical race theory in the school curriculum. Per board policy, the speakers were allocated five minutes to make a statement. The plaintiff began her statement citing her various public roles in the region, then began to voice her disapproval of the board’s reluctance to audit the school curriculum against critical race theory. At 28 seconds into her speech, the plaintiff stated that she “recently heard about the failing Xenia Board of Education and the cowardice (sic) superintendent who cannot perform adequately in his role…” The board president interrupted the plaintiff, shouting over her and threatening to cut the mic. The plaintiff continued to calmly read her prepared statement. The crowd began to loudly boo the plaintiff after the board’s threat. Board President Grech then moved the meeting into a recess. The plaintiff continued to speak over the booing crowd. A few seconds later, Board President Grech took the microphone away from the plaintiff but she continued speaking loudly without a mic as the board left the room. Although others were allowed to speak after the meeting resumed, the plaintiff was not permitted to complete her five minutes of public comment. The plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action asserting a First Amendment claim under a “heckler’s veto” theory and sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin the board from enforcing its policy against her speech at future meetings. Board policy provided for five minutes of individual public comment but allowed the presiding officer to interrupt, warn, or terminate speech when the comments are repetitive, obscene, or constitute a true threat. The policy also allowed the presiding officer to request that an individual stop speaking or leave the meeting when the speaker is disruptive to the meeting, and should that fail, call for a recess or order the disorderly person removed. The board alleged that they halted the plaintiff’s speech because she was venturing down the path of name-calling, she was directly addressing the superintendent as opposed to the entire board, and that her conduct incited the crowd. In a hearing before the district court, Board President Grech agreed that she stopped the plaintiff from speaking because she was spreading baseless accusations and name calling. Notably, the board also chided another speaker for speaking just to the superintendent and not to the entire board, but did not take further action. That speaker spoke in favor of the superintendent. The plaintiff testified that despite her desire to speak again she felt threatened and a “little frightened” about speaking at a Xenia Board meeting without court intervention. Although the district court found that some of the plaintiff’s speech was protected, it found that the phrase “cowardice (sic) superintendent” was an unprotected ad hominem attack. The district court did not reach the question of whether the board’s regulation of the plaintiff’s speech was reasonable, finding that it was a fact question that could not be resolved at the hearing. The district court denied the injunction because the record at times favored each side of the dispute and therefore there was no clear indication that the plaintiff would succeed on the merits of the claim. Reversing the district court, the Sixth Circuit found that descriptors such as “failing” and “cowardice” are protected by the First Amendment, even in a limited public forum. The Circuit court stated that even if the plaintiff’s speech was offensive, the First Amendment protects that speech because anything less would allow the government to ban the expression of unpopular views. Regardless of the forum or the risk of offending some, viewpoint discrimination is impermissible. The court continued to state that it has never held that an ad hominem attack is per se unprotected speech, but further, that plaintiff’s speech was not an ad hominem attack (a personal dig or affront, or the criticism of an adversary’s character as opposed to the substance of the adversary’s arguments). As to the heckler’s veto arguments, for the first time the Circuit applied the Heckler’s Veto theory to a limited public forum and held that the board’s conduct amounted to a heckler’s veto. The First Amendment does not permit the government to curtail speech by succumbing to the crowd’s reaction to it. Removing a speaker due to crowd hostility will “seldom, if ever, constitute the least restrictive means available to serve a legitimate government purpose.” The court noted that in this case, not only did the board sanction the heckler’s veto, but in fact gave rise to it by threatening to turn off the microphone which only riled up the audience. Finally, the court also found that the equitable factors of a preliminary injunction – the likelihood to suffer irreparable harm – was satisfied with the possible curtailment of future speech. The court did not offer much analysis on this, but seems to imply that simply saying that there is a future intention to speak and that one is a “little frightened” to do so is enough. However, it seems most likely that the Court found the board’s action so distasteful that it did not put much analysis into this element and accepted the Plaintiff’s assertions without question. Aside from the ruling on speech protections – the court offers an interesting rebuke of the district court’s determination that the reasonableness of the board’s reaction was a question of fact, holding: “A factual finding is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Here, the district court failed to make definitive credibility determinations, or probe into Grech’s testimony. Instead the district court framed the facts in the light most favorable to each side, and then determined it was too close to call. But courts have to make these calls, even the tough ones. The correct call here is that defendants provided no legitimate reason to regulate Boddy’s speech because Boddy shared views critical of the Board and Lofton.” There are a range of citable moments in this opinion, including Judge Bush’s own soapbox speech on the importance of protecting speech in the current political times in the concurrence!
News
106 Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Recognized in the 2027 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America
August 20, 2026
98 Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Recognized in the 2027 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America
August 20, 2025
