Susan Freeman, entrepreneur and consultant who moved to Riverside after her husband, Mike Futrell took the role of City Manager in 2023, filed a government claim against the city on Wednesday, alleging defamation, reputational harm and First Amendment retaliation. The claim was filed through her attorney, Carol Sobel of the Law Office of Carol Sobel in Santa Monica.
"My claim is about defamation and reputational harm. It is about retaliation and the First Amendment," Freeman said in a video statement released Wednesday afternoon. "It is about whether government can use official authority to stigmatize a private citizen without facts, without process, without fairness, accountability, investigation, or even an interview, not even a phone call."
Freeman's claim stems from a Dec. 11 letter the city sent her in response to her Dec. 4 letter to the City Council asserting her First Amendment rights. The city's letter alleged she contacted city employees through "unwanted and harassing calls, texts, emails, comments, social media posts and other communications to city employees."
The letter also alleged some city staff felt pressure to participate in Freeman's paid services, and alleged that Freeman insinuated she is "part of the city's decision-making team" despite not being a city employee.
Freeman said in an April 30 Facebook post that she encouraged Futrell to explore a position as city manager in Pasadenaafter the conflict between her and city officials. On April 15, Futrell announced he would take the Pasadena position — a decision he ultimately reversed 10 days later. At a May 5 council meeting, Futrell addressed his decision and his wife's dispute.
"Questions have been raised about my application to the city of Pasadena and about a letter that was sent to my home and later entered into public discussion," Futrell said. "Judgment should be reserved until the full factual record is available. Some of the allegations involve my wife and my family — they deserve the same basic fairness, the opportunity for facts, context and records to be fully reviewed before conclusions are drawn."
In a Substack post published the same day as the filing, Freeman said the dispute had reduced her identity to a single role. "I was reduced to one role: the City Manager's wife," she wrote. "That, to me, is not just wrong."
Freeman denied the letter's claims, calling them "absolutely false, unsupported and defamatory."
"I was not interviewed. I was not given an opportunity to respond. I was not shown evidence substantiating their accusations, my protected speech, civic engagement, public records activity and advocacy were recast as misconduct," Freeman said. "No one even asked to see the evidence that I actually have disproving every one of the horrific claims made in that letter. That is not accountability, that is not responsibility."
The claim lists $1 million in damages, though the document notes that figure is a placeholder. "Damages according to proof," the claim states, explaining that Freeman "cannot at this early stage provide a complete determination of the amount of the claim."
Freeman's legal claims are grounded in the California Bane Civil Rights Act, which prohibits government entities from interfering with a person's state or federal constitutional rights through threats, intimidation or coercion, and allows private citizens to sue for damages. The act is codified under California Civil Code Section 52.1. The claim also cites multiple provisions of the California Constitution protecting free speech, petition and due process.
Freeman told the Gazette she is seeking more than financial compensation. "This is not only about damages," she said. "It is also about accuracy, fairness, and ensuring that unsupported allegations are not used to damage a private citizen's reputation or chill protected speech."
Freeman also said public reporting on the dispute has been incomplete. "Some public reporting has simply repeated allegations without making sufficiently clear that I deny them and that the allegations have not been established as fact," she said. "Allegations are not findings, and complaints are not evidence. Claims are not proof."
A government claim is a required legal step in California before a person can sue a public agency. Filing one does not mean a lawsuit has been filed or that the underlying allegations have been proven.
