Crystal Jansen v. Shane Nelson

33 min readFeb 24, 2024

Crystal Jansen was a Sheriff’s Office corrections sergeant who self-demoted herself back to the rank of deputy — We will explain why later. Due to her treatment at the hands of Shane Nelson, Jansen eventually filed a federal sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuit against him.

Though this case was filed in 2017 and finally settled in 2021 for the tidy sum of $527,000, excluding attorneys fees, we discovered it had ties into former Sheriff’s Office captain Deron McMaster’s currently ongoing $2.5 million federal lawsuit against Nelson. This is a suit about which we have written extensively in a series of three articles on the case.

We believe this to be an important case to discuss because it is yet another example of Shane Nelson’s odious proclivity for targeting those whom he decides he doesn’t like.

As we dug into court documents and read through Jansen’s complaint against Sheriff Nelson, we realized hers was a story which has not been fully told. In writing this article we gave a lot of weight and credence to Jansen’s claims because of the significant amount for which her case was settled and because of the many sworn declarations by her former supervisors and colleagues supporting her claims.

We note that seldom if ever are nuisance lawsuits settled for over half million dollars. This fact gives further credibility to Jansen’s claims.

This is another long article so as usual we recommend you get yourself a big mug of coffee or your favorite adult beverage and without further ado, let’s get to into it.

THE TIMELINE

2013

In 2013 Crystal Jansen was employed by the Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office as a sergeant working in corrections division where she reported to one lieutenant Robert Trono.

On November 15 of that year, then captain Shane Nelson was transferred from commander of the patrol division to commander of the corrections division. Prior to his taking over the correction division, Jansen did not have much contact or interaction with Nelson

On December 4, the Sheriff’s Office announced a promotional process for the position of corrections lieutenant. However, the announcement stated that any sergeant applying for the position must “currently hold” a supervisory certificate. This barred Jansen from eligibility for the promotional process as she didn’t have this certificate.

On its face this seems like a non-issue ; however, the requirement for a sergeant to hold a supervisory certificate was a change in agency practice. Previously the requirement was that a sergeant had to receive a supervisory certification within one year of their appointment to the rank of lieutenant.

Jansen believed this change in practice was intentionally directed at depriving her from applying for the position. This may or may not be true, and we leave it to the reader to come to their own conclusions after reading the rest of the story.

2014

Throughout 2014 (and 2015), Jansen was told by her supervisor, lieutenant Trono, that then captain Shane Nelson did not like her and she should lay low and try not to come to his attention. He advised Jansen that she should stop performing any additional job responsibilities above and her minimum duties.

In his sworn declaration in the case Trono said:

“Nelson’s bias [toward Jansen] was so evident to me that I told Jansen that Nelson did not like her and she needed to be careful. Jansen made herself more visible within the agency because she was always going the extra mile and stepping up to take on special projects. I told her that she should think about withdrawing from additional job responsibilities, in an effort to stay off Nelson’s radar. I believed Nelson would be critical of Jansen’s work, regardless of the outcome of her projects [emphasis added]”

At that time Jansen was performing a number of additional duties she had been asked to take on by her previous supervisors and administrators. These included:

Being a “loaned” instructor for the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training (DPSST);
Teaching various classes in the community;
Serving as the Prison Rape Elimination Act Coordinator for Deschutes County; and
Acting as a crisis negotiator for the agency’s Special Operations Team.

Jansen was concerned about protecting her job and so she followed Trono’s advice by stepping away from her various roles and limiting her activities as much as possible so as not to come to Nelson’s attention. Trono said:

“It became apparent to me by about the second conversation I had with Captain Shane Nelson about Jansen he was biased against her. In conversation I had with Nelson, he always had something negative to say about Jansen. Nelson would make Jansen the focal point of conversations, regardless of the circumstances. Nelson’s bias against Jansen was also known to other sergeants in Corrections, as well as to lieutenants in Corrections.”

Corroborating Trono’s sworn statement would be corrections administrative lieutenant Terese Jones who would say in her own sworn declaration:

“Although I do not recall when, Trono had told me that Nelson did not like Crystal. I also had heard supervisors mention that Nelson didn’t like Crystal.”

At one point, Jansen was told by Trono to remove all photos showing her in uniform or in any other way associated with the Sheriff’s Office on her personal Facebook page. According to his declaration Trono said:

“At some point, I received a complaint from Nelson about agency-related pictures Jansen posted on Facebook. I viewed the photo Nelson referenced and it turned out it was just a basic picture of Jansen wearing her uniform that she posted on Facebook. I saw this as no big deal. When I talked to Jansen about this she became upset. Jansen explained that the pictures she posted had nothing unprofessional or would negatively represent the sheriff’s office in any way.

Jansen also told me that other male supervisors in the department had also posted pictures with direct relation to the department on Facebook and they were not counseled.”

Jansen had no idea why she was being singled out by captain Nelson; however, Nelson made a special effort to communicate to her that he did not believe she belonged in his department. For example, just in the last few months of 2014 Nelson:

Directly prevented Jansen from attending career-developing training by saying there were no spots reserved by the Sheriff’s Office; however, at least two male sergeants were invited to attend the same training;
Refused to forward painstaking work done by Jansen to the relevant internal committees;
Transferred Jansen from the team she was supervising and placing her on a team he knew was particularly resistant to having a female supervisor. For example, the team expressed they assumed Jansen would be a “bitch.”

Returning to Trono’s declaration:

“Another incident where it appeared Jansen was being treated unfairly by Captain Nelson was when I had told Jansen to hold the dates on her schedule for Command College in 2014 and told her to apply. Command College is not only highly recommended for supervisors to attend, it is also required. The training hours received at Command College assist with a supervisor being able to obtain a supervisory certificate through the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training. However, for reasons I was not told, Jansen was unable to attend.”

Importantly Trono also said:

“It was clear to me what the agenda of Captain Nelson was — he did not want Jansen to make it through probation. [emphasis added]”

In November, Jansen began reporting to a new supervisor — lieutenant Scott Lutz. About her transfer to Lutz’s team Trono said:

“While it was normal to rotate team sergeants about once a year, Nelson made a decision to move Jansen to It. Lutz’s team in an effort to ‘fix her’ — referring to Jansen. I did not agree that Jansen need to be ‘fixed.’ I felt Jansen had all of the right tools to be successful.

[Lieutenant] Lutz was also aware of Nelson’s bias towards Jansen. The only reason I could think that she was discourage Jansen from continuing at the agency. While Nelson was careful to not make any overt statements about Jansen, it was how he was constantly criticizing aspects of how she did her job, including the way she spoke, the way she did anything, or her lack of doing something.

The manner in which we as people communicate often make it clear when we dislike people; Captain Nelson made it clear he did not like Jansen.”

Of Jansen’s transfer to his team, lieutenant Lutz said in his sworn declaration before the court:

“I learned that Sergeant Jansen would be moved from Lieutenant Trono’s team to mine. I was not conferred with prior to the decision or told why, but I went and spoke with then-Captain Shane Nelson and Lieutenant Trono. My understanding, based on those conversations, was that the transfer was partially for operational reasons, but also because Captain Nelson appeared to have specific performance concerns about Jansen and he wanted her moved off of Trono’s team. My belief was that Jansen was on Captain Nelson’s radar. [emphasis added] I learned that Lieutenant Trono had not been conferred with regarding the decision either. It was unusual for such a decision to be made without speaking with the relevant Lieutenants first.”

Lieutenant Terese Jones said of Jansen’s transfer to Lutz’s team:

“I believe it was shortly before my retirement that I had heard that Crystal was removed from Trono’s team and placed on Lutz’s team in an effort to ‘fix’ her. I thought at the time that it was a joke because I didn’t have high regard for Lutz’s managerial skills. Also, moving supervisors from one team to another didn’t happen often, unless the move offered something specific a supervisor needed for training purposes. It was not standard practice to move supervisors on a regular basis, nor was it done to expose supervisors to different people or management styles.”

Like Trono before him, Lutz told Jansen on a number of occasions that Nelson didn’t like her and was focused on her. Lutz advised Jansen she should keep a low provide and do her best not to come to Nelson’s attention by, for example, engaging in additional activities outside of the immediate scope of her job.

For example, Lutz forbade Jansen from send any emails, particularly those sent to staff and other supervisors. In fact, when Jansen needed to send an email out to all of the staff, Lutz had her forward it to the administrative lieutenant for him to send out so that it would be seen as coming from Jansen.

Lutz said in his declaration:

“Jansen and I had numerous conversations about Nelson’s demeanor and focus towards her and I used myself as an example of how to avoid Nelson’s attention. For example, I suggested to her it would be a good idea that she not send routine group emails because Nelson did not approve when I did that.”

The issue of emails haunted Jansen from her time with Trono when in his declaration Trono wrote:

“Another complaint I heard regarding Jansen from Nelson was about emails that she sent where Jansen had “replied to all” which included him as a recipient. While I do not recall the exact nature of the email, I do recall it was not inappropriate. Nelson directed me to meet with Jansen to discuss it, and to tell her the email was not in the best interest of the agency since it was subject to public records requests [emphasis added]. This was another example of Nelson having a negative attitude towards Jansen, no matter what the topic was.”

There is a very telling sentence in the above quote and which we have bolded. In it Nelson tips his hand by showing his mindset and proclivity toward keeping information away from public scrutiny. Contrary to his claims of transparency Nelson’s obsession with secrecy has become a hallmark of his administration.

Lutz continues to say about Nelson’s fixation on Crystal Jansen:

“From my conversations with Nelson about Jansen, it was very apparent he was biased against her and that he had an agenda that she not remain a supervisor. He was far removed in supervision from her, yet he was consistently focused on her performance. He only made negative comments about her and her performance. He would also often make her the focus of conversations. I would describe it as common knowledge that Nelson did not like Jansen. For example, I had more than one person come to me and discuss how Nelson treated Jansen, often saying they did not agree with it. It was apparent, even without anyone saying it directly, that Nelson did not care for Jansen.”

Nelson’s behavior was not only having a significant impact on Crystal Jansen’s life, it was also putting undue stress on Lieutenant Lutz who said:

“I worked hard to keep my head down and focus on my duties. I became very stressed, though, by Nelson’s focus on and disapproval of Jansen. It put me in an incredibly difficult and stressful position because I believed that I could not personally succeed or satisfy Nelson unless Jansen was not succeeding. However, it was my job to help her succeed.”

2015

In January, Jansen applied for two training opportunities necessary for her advancement within the Sheriff’s Office. Her supervisor lieutenant Lutz approved her request to attend the trainings however Nelson denied both.

Although one of the trainings was mandatory, offered in-state, and free, and even though Jansen offered to stay with relatives so there would be no lodging expenses charged to the Sheriff’s Office, Nelson still denied Jansen’s request.

Nelson denial of Jansen’s attendance at this mandatory training resulted in her becoming out of compliance with the Sheriff’s Office’s policy on required trainings.

A natural question is whether other employees also denied the training opportunities? The answer is no. Male employees in a similar position to Jansen’s were approved to attend the trainings with two even attending a weeklong training requiring travel to the East Coast

These instances were not the first where Jansen had been unfairly denied a training required for her advancement. In his declaration her prior supervisor, Trono, said:

On several occasions during the year, lieutenant Lutz called Jansen into his office to counsel her about things that male coworkers in a similar position to her’s did without repercussion. Lutz told Jansen captainNelson had directed him to counsel her.

As an example, Jansen was counseled because during a daily morning meeting held to discuss inmate issues, she had disagreed with one of the jail mental health specialists. Her male coworkers had expressed opinions about how to handle inmates during those meetings, and sometimes disagreed with other staff, without being counseled for it. Of this Lutz says:

“I gave a second of the counselings because a different, administrative, lieutenant informed me that Jansen had brought up an issue during a team meeting that he thought had offended a different staff person named Lisa Rosen. I believe this lieutenant may have approached on instructions from Nelson because it was unusual for a lieutenant to give such feedback about a fellow lieutenant’s direct-report. After these counselings, I suggested that Jansen have a one-on-one meeting with Rosen, which Jansen did. Jansen told me the meeting went well and then I never heard of another issue between the two of them.”

This appears to be a second counseling of Jansen by Lutz. What was the first? We turn again to Lutz’s declaration:

“In 2015, I counseled her twice about her approach or how she was perceived by others. The first counseling was after Nelson came to me and told me to give her feedback. Nelson told me had heard another complaint about Jansen. Nelson told me that she needed to work on these issues and if she could not fix them, she should not be in a supervisory position. Nelson did not give me performance feedback about any of the other sergeants or members on my team.”

So once again we see Nelson taking an unhealthy interest in Jansen and specifically attempting to derail her career.

In March, Jansen spoke with Lutz about applying for the rank of lieutenant in the next promotion cycle. He told her not to bother applying as Nelson wouldn’t supporting her and his support was required from the application process. Of this, lieutenant Terese Jones said:

“I recall Crystal came to my office one day to inquire about my Administrative Lieutenant position and asked what my job duties were. I shared with her what I did and told her she would be good at the job — especially because of her attention to detail, her organizational and good time-management skills. She told me that she was interested in applying and I told her she should go for it. Later I heard, I believe it was from Trono, that Lutz had told her she need not apply for the position. I was shocked she was told not to apply because she absolutely would have been a good fit for the job and capable of succeeding in my position after I retired. Also, my experience had always been employees were encouraged to apply for new positions in an effort to help them gain experience in the promotion process.”

On April 2, Jansen received her 2014 employee evaluation. Her evaluation had been prepared by her prior supervisor, lieutenant Trono. It should have been given to her around January.

Prior to her receiving her 2014 evaluation, Trono had repeatedly told Jansen, captain Nelson was in possession of her evaluation but had not yet approved it. In fact, Trono had met with Nelson about Jansen’s evaluation. He said about it:

“During a meeting I had with Nelson regarding Jansen’s [2014] review, although I had a much better opportunity to observe Jansen’s performance, Nelson did not agree with me on several of the ratings on her evaluation. In fact, I don’t believe Nelson had worked with Jansen in any substantive capacity for many years. However, as a result of his pressure, I changed some things he had asked but I ultimately marked Jansen as overall “met standards” and Nelson was not happy. I was so frustrated after this meeting that I even vented my frustration about Nelson with another lieutenant.”

When Jansen finally received her evaluation, she learned that Trono had given her an overall evaluation of “Meets Standards”; however Nelson had whited it out and changed it to “Requires Improvement.” Jansen learned from Trono, that Nelson had asked him to mark Jansen’s overall ranking but he refused to do so, therefore Nelson did himself by hand. Trono told Jansen he had seen Nelson’s change for the first time when he gave her the evaluation.

In his declaration Trono said:

“Later, after I received Jansen’s signed evaluation back from Nelson, I sat down with Jansen to review it. Much to my surprise, while going through the evaluation with Jansen, we saw that her overall rating had been whited-out and hand written over to say ‘needs improvement’ [emphasis added]. I told her immediately that I didn’t do that and explained to her it must have been Nelson who changed it. Jansen was understandably upset by this and started crying. In all of my years of law enforcement, never had a captain changed an evaluation on their own accord without discussing with me.”

Keep in mind Shane Nelson never worked directly with Jansen and he admitted he never had the opportunity to observe Jansen’s work to a point where he could form an opinion about the quality of her work.

Trono told Jansen he would meet with Nelson to see if he could persuade him to change her evaluation to what Trono had originally written. Of this Trono said:

“I told Jansen I would discuss the employee evaluation with Nelson to see if he would be willing to change it back to the way I had written it. Unfortunately, when I met with Nelson, he said that her white-out evaluation would stand. Never in my career have I had a supervisor white-out an evaluation in this manner. It is also very unusual for an employee to be marked down in their overall rating when they have more individual positive ratings than negative ratings.”

Trono wasn’t the only supervisor surprised by Nelson’s behavior. Lieutenant Terese Jones would have this to say about it:

“I recall one time that Lieutenant Trono stopped by my office after meeting with Nelson to vent his frustration. Trono told me that Nelson expected him to lower Crystal’s employee evaluation to either ‘not met expectations’ or ‘needed improvement.’ I suggested to him that he talk [to] the captain about this, and he said that wasn’t an option. I found this to be completely out of the ordinary for normal protocol. I had never in my career heard of a captain asking a lieutenant to lower an employee’s evaluation. Another issue regarding Nelson’s request to change Crystal’s evaluation was that I had never heard of nor seen a supervisor amend an evaluation using white out [emphasis added]. If command staff wanted to amend an item on the evaluation, they would do so on their computer and print out a clean copy to resubmit for signatures.”

So why did Nelson mark down Jansen’s evaluation to “Requires improvement” when that was clearly not the case, at least in the opinion of her direct supervisor who managed her on a daily basis?

By giving her an overall “Requires Improvement” score on her evaluation, Nelson must have known Jansen would become ineligible for promotion and other career opportunities for two years. Among the opportunities Jansen would have been eligible for, had not Nelson wrongfully changed her evaluation, were a September 2016 Training Officer position and an October 2016 Programs Deputy positions.

In his deposition Trono said:

“This [Jansen’s overall evaluation grade] was even more important because it was Jansen’s final evaluation during probation and would adversely affect her going forward. His actions further confirmed that Nelson did not want her to pass probation, regardless of her actual abilities.”

On April 23, Jansen told Lt. Lutz that she felt harassed for being reprimanded for the same conduct other had employees engaged in without reprimand.

In May of 2015, Lutz told Jansen Sheriff Blanton had informed all lieutenants at a command meeting that any employee putting the Sheriff’s Office in a “bad light” would be held accountable and dealt with accordingly. Lutz’s comment caused Jansen to fear complaining any further about her treatment by Nelson, since as a sergeant she received no union protection or representation.

During the same month, a transport sergeant position opened up and Jansen told several supervisors that she intended to apply for it. Jansen was well-qualified for the position and even the sergeant retiring from the position highly recommended her to replace him. However, instead of posting the position for open letters of interest, Nelson appointed a male sergeant directly into the job. To all intents and purposes it appeared the male sergeant was less qualified than Jansen was for the position

This next claim is particularly disturbing to us and demonstrates a particularly cruel and spiteful streak.

From June until the end of the year, Jansen was intermittently on leave for family and medical reasons. After learning that Jansen felt her stress would be exacerbated by hearing from him during her leave, Nelson began contacting her frequently while she was leave. In Jansen’s opinion, It was clear Nelson hoped that his harassment would convince her to not return to work

Oh January 7, Nelson was appointed Sheriff by retiring Sheriff Blanton.

In December, Jansen and Lutz discussed Jansen’s 2015 evaluation. Lutz told Jansen that she had addressed all of the issues requiring improvement from her 2014 evaluation, and he had marked her as “Exceeds Standards” in several categories.

Lutz said he had interviewed Jansen’s subordinates whom, although being initially very resistant to a female supervisor, had very positive things to say about her. Lutz also told Jansen her male co-sergeant did not have the same glowing remarks said about him.

Anticipating opposition from now Sheriff Nelson, Lutz told Jansen he would try to convince Sheriff Nelson that her evaluation was well-deserved.

Lieutenant Lutz submitted Jansen’s evaluation for approval before the end of December.

2016

It is January and Jansen’s evaluation was still not been approved as it should have been. Jansen was understandably concerned her evaluation would be a repeat of her 2014 evaluation where Nelson had lowered her overall rating thus depriving her of further meaningful career opportunities at the Sheriff’s Office.

Behind the scenes Lutz was struggling with Jansen’s review. He was truly caught between a rock and a hard place. He would say in his declaration:

“When I needed to give her [Jansen] performance review for 2015, I believed she had significantly improved, despite her personal strife. I knew that it was going to be challenging to give her a positive review because of Nelson, so I decided to interview every member of my team (including deputies, nurses, and technicians) about her performance and I informed Nelson that I was going to do so. Every single person I interviewed informed me she was doing really well and they would like to keep working with her for several years. This was particularly notable because most members of my team previously had negative opinions of Jansen, but this was before they actually worked with her [emphasis added]. Nelson called me to inquire about how the interviews went, and I told him Jansen was doing a good job, every person on my team gave positive feedback and told me they wanted to keep working with her. Nelson responded that was ‘not what I heard.’ He told me he had heard from other deputies that she was not a good sergeant. I found Sheriff Nelson’s strong interest in her highly unusual as he was not that focused on the other sergeants on my team and, in my experience in law enforcement, it is unusual for a sheriff to be focused on the performance of sergeants because, again, they are unfamiliar with their daily work. [emphasis added].”

Despite Nelson’s building pressure on Lutz, Lutz submitted a favorable performance review for Jansen. He would say:

“I felt like I was up against a brick wall in writing her performance review because if I gave her a positive review, Sheriff Nelson would not like it. In her performance review, I gave her an overall ‘meets expectation’ and wrote in two categories that she ‘exceeds expectations.’ I personally opened the door to Captain McMaster’s office and placed her performance review on his keyboard.”

Worried that another false evaluation would result in her getting fired, Jansen took a drastic step to protect herself by requesting to be relieved of her role as sergeant and to be returned to the role of deputy. This despite knowing that returning to a deputy position was a step down for her in terms of authority, influence, and pay,

Why did she do this? Jansen states she knew stepping down was the only way to save her job, because her role as a sergeant gave her no union protection. In order to get that protection she would have to give up her supervisory role and return to being a deputy. We return to Lieutenant Lutz’s declaration where he says:

“I had conversations with another lieutenant about the dilemma I was in between supporting Jansen and watching her improve and Nelson’s obvious fixation on her. This lieutenant was friendly with Nelson and he told me, ‘She’s f**king done.’ When I asked him what he meant, he said that if she made a single mistake Nelson would immediately demote her.

During this conversation, I remember this lieutenant telling me that Nelson hated that she was promoted by Captain Espinoza. He also said to me that ‘You can change her performance, but you can’t change her personality.’ And he also told me that the best thing I could do for myself was to get Jansen to demote. Jansen demoting would allow her to have union protection that she didn’t have as a sergeant.”

We do not believe Lutz put pressure on Jansen to self-demote as he would say in his declaration that he was disappointed when he heard she had done so:

“After I submitted her performance review, Jansen self-demoted without telling me first. Later, she told me she had demoted because it was too stressful being a sergeant when she was the subject of Nelson’s negative attention. I was disappointed but understood why she made this choice to protect her job”

As soon as Jansen stepped back into the role of deputy, she was immediately returned to a deputy’s pay scale. On the face of it this seems fair. An employee should be paid for the role they are fulfilling.

However, the problem is prior to Jansen stepping down, several male supervisors had also either stepped down or had been directly demoted. However, these employees were allowed to keep their supervisory pay.

For example, a male lieutenant who was demoted to the position of deputy, was allowed to keep his lieutenant’s pay through to his later retirement. So when looking at the totality of the circumstances, it is fair to say this appears to be a clear case of targeting and/or discrimination against Jansen.

On June 3, Jansen finally received the her 2015 evaluation. It was not at all what lieutenant.Lutz had described to her the prior December. In fact just about every positive detail of Jansen’s performance during the year had been removed. This despite Jansen’s 2015 employee file having had a number of positive remarks about her professionalism and outstanding level of customer service; none of this positive information was mentioned in her evaluation.

Shocked by the dramatic changes made to her evaluation, Jansen asked Lutz about the changes. He admitted the evaluation had been rewritten to give Jansen a lower score. He would say in his declaration:

“Approximately seven months after I had submitted Jansen’s [2015] review to Captain McMaster, I heard from Jansen (then a deputy and not on my team) that she had never received her review. I went to McMaster and asked him about the review, reminding him I had submitted it seven months prior. He claimed he did not know where it was. At that time, I felt that McMaster and Nelson were never going to approve a favorable evaluation of Jansen. Since Jansen was no longer a sergeant, I suggested to him that I rewrite the review and resubmit it. He said to me that would be a good idea. At that time, I changed the two categories that had been marked “exceeds expectations” to “meets expectations” and removed one or two positive things I had said about her. I passed that back to McMaster, who approved that revised version of Jansen’s review [emphasis added].

Although I modified her review because I believed I had to get it approved by Nelson and McMaster, I felt horrible about it. Jansen was devastated when she received it.”

On June 7, Crystal Jansen filed a formal complain for job-related harassment. After suffering several years of harassment, Jansen could find no other reason to explain Sheriff Nelson’s treatment of her except for the fact that she was a female.

In 2016, Sheriff Nelson was facing the first contested Sheriff’s election in 16 years. His opponent was Eric Kozowski a deputy with the Sheriff Office. Nelson would later cost the taxpayer over $1 millions dollars in damages and $1 million dollars in outside legal fees when he lost a federal lawsuit filed against him by Kozowski.

After Jansen filed her formal complaint, Nelson announced to the media that two complaints had been filed against him by “former supervisors.” It was known to Jansen’s colleagues that she was one of the complainants.

In July, the Sheriff’s Office asked Deschutes County to hire an investigator to investigate the employee complaints against Shane Nelson.

A little over a month later, on August 20, Jansen received the formal results of the investigation which concluded Jansen’s complaint was “unsubstantiated.” Sheriff Nelson wasted no time in immediately announcing the results to both the media and all Sheriff’s Office employees.

Upon reviewing the investigation’s final report, Jansen realized she never had a chance her complaint would find merit. The reason was that the people who selected the investigator and dictated the parameters of the investigation were themselves motivated to exonerate Sheriff Nelson.

Furthermore, the investigation was conducted while Nelson was running for office and had announced the investigation publicly. Clearly the purpose of the investigation was to exonerate him. Below are some example of serious problems with the investigation:

The investigator failed to interview all relevant witnesses; refused to acknowledge evidence that supported Jansen’s claims of discrimination; and ignored entire discriminatory acts identified in Jansen’s complaint.
Nelson did not institute any safeguards to ensure the investigation would not be influenced by him.
For any wrongdoings identified in the investigation, Sheriff Nelson would be charged with determining the consequences, even if the wrongdoing was his own.

On October 18, realizing she had no hope of an independent investigation at the Sheriff’s Office, Jansen filed a complaint of discrimination with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI).

Within a few months of Jansen’s complaints coming out, two other female deputies, Christine Daugherty and Jennifer Gaspard, came forward to complain of the discrimination they’ve experienced in the Sheriff’s Office.

2017

In June, Sheriff Nelson made gratuitous and inaccurate comments to the media regarding Jansen. Through the media he indicated that Jansen’s complaints about him were essentially retaliation for his trying to hold her accountable for some transgression. As we have seen thus far, if anyone was the victim of some transgression it was Jansen at the hands of Nelson

The inaccurate portrayal that Nelson intentionally painted of Jansen in the media caused her community members and co-workers to view her negatively. The press coverage, stoked by Nelson, created strained professional working relationships for Jansen within the Sheriff’s Office and was directly contrary to the appropriate scope of Nelson’s duties.

In August, Jansen was called in to an “investigatory meeting.” She was assured that the meeting had nothing to do with her legal complaints against Shane Nelson. Despite this assurance, the investigator proceeded to ask Jansen about discrimination against women at the Sheriff’s Office. This was essentially topic of Jansen’s complaints and she wasn’t given the opportunity to have an attorney present at the interview, and so she declined to elaborate on the topic, but she did confirm that sex discrimination within the agency was present.

Jansen also provided the investigator with at least one name of a female staff member he should contact about discrimination. It appears that staff member was never interviewed.

On August 16, Jansen filed her federal lawsuit. Following her filing, she was subjected to further discrimination and retaliation by Nelson and the Sheriff’s Office.

Specifically, in September Sheriff Nelson drove over thirty miles to the Sheriff’s Office firearms range to harass Jansen while she was training there. Keep in mind no Sheriff, including Nelson, had previously come to fully participate in such a training session.

At the range, Nelson proceeded to call Jansen by another female employee’s name. It was evident to all the deputies who witnessed the exchange that the purpose of Nelson “misremembering” Jansen’s name was to humiliate her and let her know she meant nothing to him.

We again find this behavior by Nelson to be cruel and sadistic, much like his repeatedly contacting Jansen while she was on medical leave.

On September 11, Jansen was contacted by sergeant, Paul Navarro, with regard to her most recent evaluation. Navarro told Jansen he had written her evaluation prior to his going out on administrative leave, and once it was completed, he had asked his co-sergeant, sergeant Molan to read it over prior to submission.

While out on leave, Navarro contacted Jansen to speak to her about her evaluation and asked if her final review included his leadership recommendation. Jansen told him it did not. How could that be?

In his sworn declaration before the court Navarro would state:

“Jansen is one of my senior deputies. In her most recent employee evaluation, I had written on it I would like to see Jansen take on more of a leadership role in high risk incidences, something she would have been more than qualified to do. Prior to me submitting her review up the chain of command, I gave my co-sergeant, Mike Molan, her evaluation to review. Mike read my recommendation and told me that it ‘wasn’t going to fly’ with upper management because they wouldn’t want anything about ‘leadership’ on her evaluation. I ignored his comment because my review reflected my observations and I submitted Jansen’s evaluation with my recommendation to an available lieutenant, which happened to be Lieutenant Jernigan.

To my surprise, Jansen’s evaluation was returned to me with my leadership recommendation crossed off. Unfortunately, this happened during the same time period that I was on leave, so I asked Molan to complete Jansen’s evaluation, which he did. While on leave, it occurred to me to speak to Jansen about her evaluation. I asked her if her final review included my leadership recommendation and she told me it did not. In an effort to appease upper management, Molan must have edited Jansen’s review to omit my recommendation.

It is hard to overstate the importance of written evaluations in our line of work, every word is impactful and the decision to omit ‘leadership’ for Jansen affects her future leadership opportunities. The decision to override my leadership recommendation for Jansen, who was a deputy who directly reported to me, was made without even discussing it with me.

It was clear from Molan’s reaction to my positive review of Jansen that he had knowledge that upper management would not like to see Jansen being recommended for a leadership role. Both Molan and Lieutenant Trono have said to me that Sheriff Nelson did not like Jansen. This is difficult for me to understand because Jansen is not only an outstanding deputy, she is well-liked and respected by her peers. The sheriff’s office is a male dominated workplace that bas a high turnover rate of female employees. The women I have worked with appear to work harder to prove themselves in this environment and it is possible that men may feel threatened by this.”

Still undeterred, on October 8, Jansen submitted a letter of interest for a transport/court security deputy position. This position was in the transports division, a division Jansen had previously wanted to supervise and in which she had prior experience working.

This was the first opportunity for which Jansen had met the minimum qualifications since Sheriff Nelson had marked down her overall score to “Requires improvement” in her 2014 employee evaluation. At the time of her application, Jansen’s team sergeant fully supported her interest in the position and signed off on her letter of interest for the position.

2018

On January 11, Jansen was required to attend a mandatory training about harassment brought to the Sheriff’s Office by Sheriff Nelson. The training’s content was directly related to the complaints that Jansen had made against Nelson. The training presenters appeared to be unaware of Jansen’s lawsuit against the Sheriff’s office and as part of the course asked the approximately forty attendees from the Sheriff’s Office about pending lawsuits against the County.

Given the subject of the training and the questions asked by the presenters, all the eyes of the attendees were on Crystal Jansen. It seems that Nelson was trying to retaliate against Jansen by humiliating her in front of her colleagues and other Sheriff’s Office employees. This is clearly Nelson’s MO as we have described in former captain Deron McMaster’s federal lawsuit against Shane Nelson.

We reached out to an employee who attended this training and who told us:

“We were in a ‘harassment’ training at the SO [Sheriff’s Office] several months after she [Jansen] filed her lawsuit, and some of the content was clearly directed to make her uncomfortable. During a training break, Crystal was visibly shaking and couldn’t even put cream in her coffee. At that point, I reached out to her to offer my support — no human should be made to feel that way under the guise of training, let alone in a workplace!”

On January 30, Jansen learned that she was not selected for the transport/court security deputy position. She later discovered that Deputy Fabian Benitez was selected for the position. Benitez subsequently withdrew from the selection process and rescinded his interest in the position. However, no further selection was made for the position and Jansen was never contacted again about it.

Jansen was clearly well- qualified for the position and believed she was not selected because of her complaints and lawsuit against Sheriff Nelson.

In February, Jansen was invited to participate in an interview panel for a crisis negotiator position. Participating in interview panels is a part of professional development within the agency and can assist employees in their own career advancement efforts.

Barely two months later, in April, Jansen was blocked from participating in the panel. She later learned that she was not included because one of the potential interviewees was Jennifer Gaspard who had previously filed a discrimination complaint against the Sheriff’s Office.

Jansen believed she was excluded because of her gender and her complaints against Nelson. The Sheriff’s Office apparently believed that if Jansen were involved in the panel, then it would not be able to control the outcome.

During the year Nelson sought to further retaliate against Jansen for her protected conduct in both filing a BOLI complaint and her lawsuit. He hired an investigator to determine whether any of her statements in either proceeding amounted to a violation of policy, presumably so that he could justify disciplining Jansen. As we have seen again and again this was and is a common tactic used by Nelson against those he wishes to target. In fact he has to date spent over $750,000 hiring outside investigators to conduct internal investigations against his own employees.

In September 2021. Crystal Jansen’s lawsuit was finally settled for $527,000, excluding legal costs. As part of the settlement Jansen agreed to resign from the Sheriff’s Office.

We believe she had simply had enough. We also believe that the Sheriff’s Office and the county taxpayers got off extremely lightly in this case. Sadly the Sheriff’s Office and the community lost an outstanding public servant in the process.

WAS CRYSTAL JANSEN A GOOD EMPLOYEE?

The best way to answer this question is to turn to the sworn declarations of her supervisors and colleagues:

Lieutenant Robert Trono

“Jansen is an energetic, motivated, passionate employee who genuinely cares for people and was always willing to “step up to the plate.” If given the opportunity in the future, I would absolutely hire Jansen because she was a great employee. I do not feel Jansen was given a fair and equal opportunity for growth or advancement once Nelson became a part of her command structure, because I believe he has an issue with strong, assertive women. Nelson ruined Jansen’s career — she was an up and coming law enforcement officer who I believe would have been lieutenant by now if he had treated her fairly.”

Lieutenant Terese Jones

“I have worked with Crystal Jansen over the years and worked directly with her on projects. In my experience, I found Crystal to be one of the hardest working employees in the agency, as she always did whatever needed to be done in any situation.”

Sergeant Brian Bishop

“I worked for the Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office for almost 16 years, leaving in

April of 2017 to accept a position at Crook County as the Jail Commander. During my career at Deschutes County, I worked both as a deputy and as a sergeant in Corrections. Crystal Jansen and I were co-sergeants, so we worked together on a regular basis. In my experience, Crystal

was absolutely the hardest working supervisor in the entire agency, as she always did whatever needed to be done. Crystal always demonstrated a great work ethic; she was very good working with people and always maintained a positive attitude.”

Sergeant Earl Byers

“I worked for the Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office for almost 17 years until I retired from law enforcement in 2015. Prior to retirement, I worked in Corrections and was the sergeant responsible for the transport team. I worked with Crystal Jansen on and off for 15 years, both as her superior and as co-sergeants. During that time, I found Crystal to be an incredibly responsible person who I could always depend on to get the job done in a thorough, detailed and timely manner.

While working with Crystal as her supervisor, I often went to her with special projects and assignments because I knew she would complete them effectively and efficiently.

In fact, it was because of my high regard for her work ethic that I recommended Crystal to Captain Espinoza to be promoted to sergeant. Later, as her fellow sergeant, I would often go to Crystal and ask her to review my documents and reports, as well as assist me with computer issues. Crystal did a much better job on reports than me because of her high attention to detail.”

Sergeant Paul Navarro

“I worked for the Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office for almost 19 years. I have been a sergeant in Corrections for the past two years. Throughout my career, I have worked on and off with Crystal Jansen, with my most recent experience as her direct supervisor. In my years of experience working with Jansen, I would describe her as one of the hardest working deputies I have ever worked with. Jansen has always been dependable, very knowledgeable in her job, and highly organized.”

SUMMARY

Was this a case of sex discrimination and harassment against a female, was it a case of harassment against an employee Nelson simply didn’t like, or was it both. We cannot say if Nelson personally disliked Jansen, only he can know that in his heart; however, based of the series of women who have complained against Nelson, often under oath, we believed that misogyny clearly played a role.

In our article “Who is Shane Nelson Really?” we described how Nelson showed himself to be a manipulative and heartless man bent on retaliating against and heaping misery on those he had targeted. We described a man demanding absolutely loyalty from those who work for him, and anyone found lacking found themselves on the outside and potential targets of his wrath.

Nelson remorselessly uses the full weight and power of his office to retaliate against and inflict misery upon those whom he perceives as being disloyal to him, whom he thinks have crossed him in some way or simply those he decides he doesn’t like.

Crystal Jansen, for reasons completely unknown to her, fell prey to Shane Nelson and was relentlessly persecuted by him until she was driven out of the Sheriff’s Office. As we have discovered, she was not the first nor would she be the last to suffer Nelson’s cruelty. Indeed, it would soon be lieutenant Robert Trono who found himself to be in Nelson’s crosshairs:

“After Jansen filed a formal complaint of harassment against Nelson, I was interviewed by two separate people, each once. The first time was by an outside investigator and the second time by a person from the County’s Human Resources office… From the questions that were asked, I believed that the agency desired to show that Nelson had not discriminated against Jansen; I did not get the impression that the agency desired to hear the truth. Although I could have supplied more detail, if I felt the investigation was unbiased, I only provided truthful answers to the questions supplied. The answers I did give, though, included my belief that Jansen was being treated worse than others by Nelson.

As it turned out, I had good reason to be concerned for my job during those interviews. Days following the conclusion of the internal investigation into Jansen’s first complaint, I was put on administrative leave. I feel that my leave was connected to my involvement and statements made in support of Jansen and her complaints against Nelson. Ultimately, I believe this led to my termination in April of 2017.”

Our first inclination after reading the above was to consider that perhaps what Trono had said in his sworn declaration may have been “sour grapes” for being terminated. However, we quickly discounted this as so many other employees had corroborated had said under oath in their own sworn declarations.

Nelson pattern of behavior started prior to his becoming Sheriff and became worse as he gained more power. Truly, the best thing to have happened to the Sheriff’s Office is Nelson’s announcement to retire.

Unfortunately, it seems to us Nelson’s protege and candidate for Sheriff’s Office, captain William Bailey, is cut from the same cloth as Nelson. It is no surprise then that Shane Nelson has not only publicly endorsed Bailey but is aggressively campaigning for him. We believe this to be unseemly, inappropriate, and frankly tests the bounds of ethics.

Ultimately, we believe Shane Nelson will go down in history as one of the worst sheriff’s the agency has had the misfortune to lead it. How would we sum up his legacy? We would call it a “legacy of litigation”, litigation that will continue to cost the taxpayer long after Nelson has left the agency and sailed off into retirement.

REFERENCES

Crystal Jansen v. Shane Nelson

Written by DCSO Follies

No responses yet