Both sides in a federal lawsuit have decided to try to mediate a conflict involving charges of discrimination in Butler County's Courthouse amid a backdrop of alleged sexual trysts.

The decision will bring Crystal Starnes, a probation officer for the county, and President Judge Thomas Doerr together on Jan. 11, 2021, to decide if the lawsuit can be resolved without a jury trial.

Starnes first filed a federal lawsuit against Doerr in 2017, alleging, among other things, that Doerr hired her as a county probation officer after he started an unwelcome five-year sexual relationship with her in 2005, calling it a “business relationship.” Her lawsuit, in which she demands a jury trial, claims Doerr continued to harass her after the relationship ended in 2010.

Now the case will go through a proceeding known as an alternative dispute resolution, and it is the first indication of substantial activity in a case that has languished because of legal jousting for more than a year.

On Oct. 5, United States District Judge Cathy Bissoon ordered both parties to read an article on how to avoid failing a mediation effort. The order was made in preparation of the two sides hiring a neutral mediator from Pittsburgh to serve as a negotiator between both sides.

According to the assigned reading written by mediator William Carlucci, mediation efforts usually move the case to a monetary settlement between the two parties. Carlucci writes, “Most litigants settle their case either to manage the risk of litigation costs or to manage the risk of an adverse outcome.”

On Nov. 12, Bissoon ordered the case to go into mediation, triggering official negotiations between the two sides.

Activity in the federal lawsuit halted March 20, 2019, after Starnes requested to be allowed to add an extra allegation against Doerr. The request, which was granted, was made after Starnes claimed Doerr continued to retaliate against her during the course of the lawsuit.

Citing retaliation and discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act, Starnes claimed that “A major form of the discrimination ... has been the segregation and isolation of Starnes.”

Starnes claims in the amended complaint that Doerr used the apparatus of the county government to prevent her from taking full advantage of her position as a probation officer to take on extra work and training that was available to her colleagues.

She argues that in January and April 2018 vacancies in her department were not advertised to her, depriving her of the ability to apply for the open positions available to everyone else. Starnes concludes “the Court has failed to provide Starnes with sufficient work to fully occupy her” and as a result she claims “she has lost income and the opportunity to advance in her career and develop the full extent of her capacities and garner experience as a probation officer.”

Starnes claims that these new charges reinforces Doerr's previous alleged behavior.

In Doerr's response to the complaint, he denies that he “subjected her to a hostile work environment, compelled her to engage in sexual relations, or otherwise acted unlawfully.”