Chapter 2: The Federal Wrongful Termination Lawsuit (Bergeron et al. v. La Porte County)

On November 21, 2023, three former LaPorte County employees filed a 13-count federal civil rights lawsuit against LaPorte County and, in their personal capacities, Commissioners Connie Gramarossa and Rich Mrozinski. The complaint alleges a systematic campaign of political retaliation, corrupt demands, and unlawful firings orchestrated by the two commissioners. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, paints a damning picture of the political environment within the county government [1].

The Plaintiffs and Their Stories

The lawsuit was brought by three individuals who were all terminated within a three-month period in the summer of 2023:

• Allen Stevens: The LaPorte County Republican Party Chairman, Stevens was appointed Highway Superintendent in January 2023. He was fired on June 12, 2023, after what the complaint describes as his repeated refusal to comply with Gramarossa and Mrozinski’s "corrupt and unethical demands" [1].
• Dion Bergeron: A seasonal mower for the Highway Department hired on May 8, 2023. Bergeron’s wife had run against Gramarossa in the 2022 Republican primary. He was fired on June 15, 2023, just 37 days after being hired, for what the complaint alleges was purely political retaliation [1].
• Debra Fly-Nelson: An administrative assistant hired in January 2023 who had developed a close working relationship with Gramarossa. She was fired on August 11, 2023, after she refused to pledge her unconditional loyalty to Gramarossa following Stevens’s termination [1].

The Seven Corrupt Demands

The complaint details seven specific categories of corrupt and unethical demands that it alleges Commissioners Gramarossa and Mrozinski made of Highway Superintendent Allen Stevens, which he repeatedly refused:

a. demands to hire and promote family members;
b. demands to prioritize street paving projects for friends and family members;
c. demands to fire perceived political opponents, including Plaintiff Dion Bergeron;
d. demands to take on special projects for political allies;
e. demands to use politically connected vendors;
f. demands to “shake down” vendors for contributions; and
g. demands to manipulate county paving contracts for political gain. [1]

Just before his termination, the complaint alleges, Stevens also refused the commissioners’ instructions to “reign in” their political rivals, Commissioner Joe Haney and Auditor Tim Stabosz, and to intervene in the separate email lawsuit by asking the Attorney General to “back off” [1].

The Firing of Dion Bergeron: A Case Study in Political Retaliation

The complaint presents the firing of Dion Bergeron as a clear-cut case of political retaliation. Bergeron’s wife had been Gramarossa’s political opponent. In the weeks leading up to his termination, Bergeron had publicly shared and commented on Facebook posts critical of Gramarossa, particularly regarding her Chicago car accident. The complaint alleges that Gramarossa was aware of this activity and was motivated by it to retaliate [1].

According to the complaint, Gramarossa directly asked Highway Superintendent Allen Stevens to fire Bergeron because of his political speech and affiliation. Stevens refused. Just days later, Stevens himself was fired. Three days after that, on June 15, 2023, Bergeron was terminated by another highway department employee, who told him his mower was broken and would take a long time to fix. This was despite the fact that Bergeron had been told during his hiring that he would be reassigned to other crews if his mower broke down. The complaint notes that another mower who had been caught sleeping in his tractor was not fired [1].

The Firing of Debra Fly-Nelson: A Demand for Loyalty

The complaint alleges that Debra Fly-Nelson, an administrative assistant, was fired for refusing to pledge her unconditional loyalty to Gramarossa. According to the complaint, Gramarossa had confided in Fly-Nelson that she was “collecting information on Stevens to try to get him wrongfully fired.” After Stevens was terminated, Fly-Nelson questioned Gramarossa about the propriety of the firing. Gramarossa responded by asking if Fly-Nelson would “remain loyal to Gramarossa.” Fly-Nelson answered that she planned to “do her job and be honest.”

After that conversation, the complaint alleges, Gramarossa’s behavior changed. She subjected Fly-Nelson to “heightened scrutiny, seeking a pretextual basis wrongfully to terminate” her. On August 11, 2023, Gramarossa fired Fly-Nelson, telling her she had “failed to meet the expectations of the position,” despite Fly-Nelson having two decades of experience in similar roles [1].

The June 2025 Court Ruling: What Was Dismissed, and Why It Matters

On June 18, 2025, U.S. District Judge Damon R. Leichty issued a ruling on the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court dismissed most counts — but the reason for those dismissals is critically important, and it is not what Gramarossa's supporters might claim.

The court did not dismiss any claim because it found the allegations to be false. The court did not say the misconduct didn't happen. It dismissed claims on two narrow legal grounds that have nothing to do with the merits of the underlying conduct.

Ground One: The Garcetti Doctrine

The claims brought by Allen Stevens were dismissed because of a legal doctrine established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006). Under the Garcetti doctrine, a public employee's speech is only protected by the First Amendment when it is made as a private citizen — not when it is made as part of the employee's official job duties.

The court found that Stevens's refusals — refusing to hire family members, refusing to manipulate paving contracts, refusing to fire political opponents — were all actions taken in his capacity as Highway Superintendent. Because those refusals were part of his official job duties, the First Amendment's protection for private citizens did not apply to him under Garcetti, even if the demands he was refusing were corrupt and unethical [2].

This is a subtle but crucial distinction. The court was not saying the demands were acceptable, or that Stevens was not wronged. It was saying that the legal vehicle of a First Amendment claim was not available to him because his speech occurred within the scope of his employment. As the court noted, the Garcetti ruling is an appealable legal determination — meaning Stevens could challenge this ruling at the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals [2].

Dion Bergeron's situation was different. His Facebook posts and comments at political meetings were made entirely outside his role as a seasonal mower. A mower's job duties have nothing to do with commenting on a commissioner's use of a county vehicle. The court therefore found that Bergeron's speech was protected private-citizen speech under the First Amendment, and his claims survived [2].

Ground Two: Supplemental Jurisdiction

The state law claims brought by Stevens (defamation, tortious interference) and Fly-Nelson (tortious interference) were dismissed on a separate, procedural ground: lack of supplemental jurisdiction. Because Stevens's and Fly-Nelson's federal claims were dismissed under Garcetti, the court lost its legal basis to also hear their state law claims. Federal courts can only hear state law claims when they are closely connected to a surviving federal claim. With no surviving federal claim for Stevens or Fly-Nelson, the court had no jurisdiction to rule on their state law claims [2].

Again: this is a procedural ruling about the court's authority to hear the claims — not a ruling that the underlying conduct did not occur. Stevens and Fly-Nelson retain the right to pursue their state law claims in Indiana state court.

What Survived: Gramarossa Faces a Jury

The court allowed two counts to proceed against Commissioner Gramarossa personally in the case of Dion Bergeron:

• Count 10 (First Amendment Retaliation): The court found it plausible that Gramarossa retaliated against Bergeron for his protected political speech and affiliation. The court specifically noted the suspicious timing — Gramarossa personally ordered Stevens to fire Bergeron, Stevens refused, and Bergeron was fired five days after his last public criticism of Gramarossa [2].
• Count 11 (Tortious Interference): The court found it plausible that Gramarossa, acting outside the scope of her official authority for personal political reasons, tortiously interfered with Bergeron's employment relationship with the county [2].

As of early 2026, the case is ongoing. Discovery has concluded, and a 3-day jury trial is scheduled to begin on October 19, 2026. Commissioner Gramarossa will face a federal jury on these two counts [3].

References

[1] Bergeron et al. v. La Porte County et al. (2023, November 21). Complaint, Document 1. USDC IN/ND Case 3:23-cv-01003-DRL-MGG. Uploaded as all-combined.pdf

[2] Leichty, D.R. (2025, June 18). Opinion and Order, Document 40. USDC IN/ND Case 3:23-cv-01003-DRL-SJF. (Uploaded as opinionandorder.pdf

[3] PACER Monitor. (2026, February 18). Bergeron et al v. La Porte County et al (3:23-cv-01003). https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/51447816/Bergeron_et_al_v_La_Porte_County_et_al