A federal judge Thursday denied a motion to strike certain parts of a lawsuit filed against Butler County President Judge Thomas Doerr alleging sexual misconduct and workplace discrimination.

The order, filed Thursday by U.S. District Court Judge Cathy Bissoon, states that Doerr's motion to strike “scandalous and impertinent” matter, was denied because “the Court finds that the challenged averments are arguably relevant to, among other things, Plaintiff's claim that her interactions with Doerr after ending their sexual relationship created a hostile work environment and violated her First Amendment right to free association.

“To the extent the challenged allegations are potentially prejudicial and/or likely to confuse a fact-finder, the Court will have the ability to address these concerns through appropriate pretrial orders and/or careful jury selection, if the action proceeds to that stage.”

Doerr, through his attorney Thomas McGinnis, attempted to have several allegations dealing with his and Starnes' alleged sexual history, which “sets forth salacious and unnecessary details of the alleged relationship ... for the sole purpose of embarrassing and disparaging (Doerr),” dismissed and struck from the public record in a motion filed Tuesday.

Those allegations include claims that after meeting Doerr at a Christmas party in 2004, and discussing a possible job with the probation office in the county, Starnes eventually went to Doerr's chambers on a Friday evening in February 2005, where the two engaged in sexual intercourse, establishing a “business” relationship that led to her hiring several months later.

After Starnes was hired, the lawsuit claims, Doerr continued a sexual relationship with her, and the woman “felt that she had little choice and did not resist his command,” when he summoned her to his chambers for sex.

The defense's motion attempted to have that stricken, as well as any allegations that Doerr arranged to have Starnes placed in positions that required her to be near him, and engaged in workplace discrimination with several other people working in the county court system.

Bissoon allowed those allegations to continue in the lawsuit.

Starnes has until Feb. 26 to respond to two other motions, filed by Doerr's legal team as well as the Butler County Court system on behalf of deputy court administrator Thomas Holman, that seek to have her entire lawsuit tossed out.

In Doerr's motion to dismiss, McGinnis wrote that the lawsuit fails to demonstrate “any violation” of Starnes' First Amendment rights; fails to state a “legally sufficient claim” for violation of her 14th Amendment right to equal protection; fails to demonstrate how Starnes' procedural due process rights were violated; fails to state an “actionable claim” of retaliation against Starnes; and argues that Doerr is entitled to “qualified immunity with respect to the claims asserted in the (complaint).”

The motion also argues that Starnes' lawsuit should be dismissed because her claims are “largely based upon time-barred events dating back to 2004, and (she) seeks to relitigate matters that were resolved,” by a settlement in 2014.

The county's motion to dismiss, also filed Tuesday on behalf of Holman and the court, argues that Starnes “validly released all claims regarding her extramarital affair that occurred before May 12, 2014,” when she signed a legal document with the county to secure a probation officer position with the Domestic Relations Office following a pregnancy and reassignment.

That deal “unconditionally and forever release, remise and discharge the Butler County Court of Common Pleas ... from any and all claims, demands and causes of action that Starnes has, had or may have ever had, arising out of the events that have transpired from the beginning of Starnes' employment with the Court until the date of this Release,” a brief in support of the motion states.

“Even assuming Starnes can establish a breach of the Release which resurrects her pre-2014 claims, those claims are time-barred because she claims to have suffered discrete discriminatory acts, as opposed to an ongoing pattern of a hostile work environment,” the motion states.

The motion also attempts to have all counts against Holman dismissed, stating that “Starnes' Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim based on gender must be dismissed because she fails to allege that Holman had any direct involvement in actions treating differently from similarly situated males.”

“First Amendment Retaliation for Engaging in Protected Activity must be dismissed because Starnes did not engage in protected activity as her actions involved purely personal matters and the allegedly retaliatory action was not sufficient to deter others from exercising their constitutional rights,” and “There are no facts alleged in the Second Amended Complaint to support a Fourteenth Amendment claim based on procedural due process.”