Ron Brown: A Case of Negligent Retention?
“Negligent retention is a type of employment-related claim in which a plaintiff asserts that an employer failed to discharge an employee who management knew, or should have known, had a propensity toward violence, sexual harassment, or dishonesty.” — International Risk Management Institute
Ron Brown was the acting criminal detective sergeant with the Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office. In October 2022, after an investigation conducted by the Oregon State Police, Ron Brown, 58, was charged with three counts of first-degree official misconduct and one count of unlawful dissemination of an intimate image. All are Class A misdemeanors with each being punishable by a fine of up to $6250 and up to a year in the county jail.
On November 29, 2023 Brown was convicted on two counts of first-degree official misconduct. He is scheduled to be sentenced on January 5, 2024.
To learn a little more about the charges against Brown, we refer to an article appearing in the Central Oregon Daily News on 2/24/2023 titled, “Ex-Deschutes County deputy pleads not guilty to misconduct charges”
On September 28, 2021, Ron Brown was called to the scene of a death. While investigating, Brown spoke to the fiancee of the deceased person. She asked Brown to delete sexual photos and videos of her and her fiancé from her fiancé’s phone so that his family wouldn’t see them. According to the DA’s Office, Brown agreed but instead transferred the content to his own phone. In her verdict against him, Judge Annette C. Hillman ruled in Deschutes County Circuit Court that Brown did this to sexually gratify himself.
On December 30, 2021, the same woman was being evicted from the Sugarloaf Mt. Motel in Bend and the motel management wasn’t allowing her back into the room to gather her belongings. So she called Brown for help as she trusted him.
Brown went to the motel and spoke to motel management stating he was there on law enforcement business. He then retrieved the woman’s belongings. This according to the DA’s Office constituted a crime of Official Misconduct in the First Degree. Brown then called the woman and asked her to meet him in Shari’s restaurant parking lot at the south end of Bend. When she arrived, Brown told her to get into his Sheriff’s Office vehicle. There, she saw Brown watching pornography on his phone. According to former DA Hummel, “He [Brown] appeared aroused and was not able to control his body movements”, This also resulted in a charge of First Degree Official Misconduct.
PRIOR CONDUCT
Unfortunately, Brown’s most recent legal woes are not the first time he has had issues with predatory sexual behavior and harassment. We have to go back several years to a day when then criminal detective Brown was working an overtime shift as a patrol deputy.
On that day a female patrol deputy had stopped a vehicle and was conducting a DUII (Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants) investigation. As is common practice on such calls, the deputy requested a cover unit. Brown responded and arrived on scene to assist with the investigation.
At some point while on scene, Brown told the female deputy that he fantasized about licking her anus. The female deputy didn’t immediately report what Brown had said to her supervisor; however, through a series of events, the incident was eventually reported up the chain of command by a third party who did so under a “duty to report” as required by Sheriff’s Office policy.
ETHICS AND CONSEQUENCES… OR LACK THEREOF
Upon becoming aware of Browns alleged behavior, the Sheriff’s Office conducted an internal investigation. This investigation concluded by finding against Ron Brown.
Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office policy 3.60 on harassment and discrimination in the workplace provides the range of sanctions available in the event of a sexual harassment finding against an employee. It states:
“After an investigation is conducted, appropriate corrective action will be taken in all cases in which the Sheriff concludes a violation of this policy has occurred.
1. Corrective action can include, but is not limited to, counseling, warning, additional training or instruction, reassignment, oral or written reprimand, suspension without pay, dismissal from employment or other disciplinary action which is consistent with the collective bargaining agreement or Sheriff’s Office policies given the seriousness of the conduct and all relevant circumstances.”
As stated in the above policy, the sanctions for sexual harassment range from counseling to dismissal from employment. In Ron Browns’ case, his punishment was a simple letter of reprimand. No further action was taken.
Before continuing with our story, it is important to understand that at the time of this incident, Brown, a man then in his mid-fifties, was a detective with the Sheriff’s Office criminal detective unit. This is considered a senior role. Furthermore, according to the Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office Facebook page, Brown had served in the Sheriff Office for over 20 years. Thus, it is not at all unreasonable to assume he knew full well what he said to the female deputy was in clear and direct violation of Sheriff’s Office Policy at the time he said it.
Beyond this, we think it’s fair to say anyone with an ounce of common sense would know the kind of pornographic statement Brown made to his female co-worker wouldn’t win the “Employee of The Month Award”..
The truth is in many, if not most, places of employment such a brazen and overt display of sexual harassment would likely result in immediate termination — And rightfully so. Not only because it is the right thing to do, but because keeping an employee on payroll with a proclivity for and a history of engaging in such brazen and overt sexual harassment is a massive liability. Management 101 folks.
Furthermore, it is not unreasonable to expect the ethical bar to be set even higher at a law enforcement agency. Certainly the Sheriff’s Office policy 1.01 “Ethics and Professional Standards” would lead one to believe so. We quote: “…Sheriff’s Office members are vested with a public trust which requires that they consistently demonstrate the highest degree of integrity and good moral character…”
We think Browns graphic comment is diametrically opposed to showing the “highest degree of integrity and good moral character” and probably deserved a much stiffer sanction than a simple letter of reprimand.
Why is this?
For starters, what kind of example do such minor consequences for an overt and vulgar act of sexual harassment set for other employees — particularly young and impressionable ones? That blatant sexual harassment against others is tolerated and will end in only minor repercussion?
What does it tell victims of sexual harassment? That nothing of consequence will happen to the victimizer and the organization doesn’t really take it that seriously?
What does it communicate about the tolerance for sexual harassment and misconduct within the workplace and what kind of cultural tone does it set within the organization? We think a terrible one.
Finally, how can someone who carries a badge and a gun, who carries the authority of the state, and who interacts with the most vulnerable in society be trusted with the responsibility of protecting the community if they are capable of making such overt sexual advances towards a fellow co-worker while in uniform and on duty.
We will write about the legal liability implications shortly.
Ron Brown remained a detective, and despite this black mark on his record, he would soon be promoted to acting sergeant over the criminal detectives unit — a quite prestigious role within the agency.
He would subsequently be tapped to be the full time sergeant; however, before he could be sworn into the role, the incident from which criminal charges against Brown arose came to light.
Betore moving on, we have to ask whether there have been other internal investigations against Ron Brown for sexual harassment or if there are other victims of his behavior who have yet to step forth? Unfortunately, the kind of predatory behavior exhibited by Ron Brown rarely occurs once or twice but is often a part of broader pattern of events. Perhaps his is the exception to the rule.
LEGAL JEOPARDY
The Sheriff’s Office leadership is often seen running around the halls with their hair on fire worrying about legal liability to the agency. In fact, they will constantly berate and admonish deputies about the risks of exposing the agency to any sort of liability.
How ironic then that in an attempt to protect one of the “chosen ones” (formerly known as the “good old boys”) they would themselves expose the Sheriff’s Office to significant legal jeopardy.
Not only did their lack of meaningful and appropriate action in the internal investigation against Ron Brown quite possibly lead to the crimes he committed against a vulnerable victim, but on December 20, 2023, the Bend Bulletin reported the same victim threatened to file a tort claim against the Sheriff’s Office.
Recall at the top of this article, negligent retention was defined as: “… a type of employment-related claim in which a plaintiff asserts that an employer failed to discharge an employee who management knew, or should have known, had a propensity toward violence, sexual harassment, or dishonesty.”
You don’t have to be a legal scholar to see the Sheriff’s Office has a problem on their hands. If the victim’s attorneys do their homework during discovery, which we are sure they will, they will inevitably uncover the internal investigation into Ron Brown.
This will most certainly drive up the cost to the taxpayer for any out of court settlement or awarded damages — Should the Sheriff’s Office be foolish enough to take this case to trial.
FAILURE OF LEADERSHIP… AGAIN
We believe had Ron Brown been dealt with appropriately after his brazen act of sexual harassment against his co-worker, then he would have never been in a position of authority allowing him the opportunity to prey upon other victims.
Indeed, if his punishment had been commensurate with his actions, then perhaps he would have been deterred from committing his subsequent crimes. Instead Brown likely felt a certain degree of impunity. After all his prior behavior had resulted in little to no consequence to him or his career, so why would anything change?
In many ways Ron Brown was let down by his leaders. They had the opportunity early on to perhaps change the trajectory of his behavior and ultimately his career. It was no secret around the Sheriff’s Office that Brown was a ticking time bomb who commonly made inappropriate and sexually suggestive statements.
Thus this story serves to highlight yet another instance of gross mismanagement by the Sheriff’s Office leadership. Given the mistakes they continue making, we must ask: Do they even understand the most basic and fundamental tenants of management?
Unfortunately, Sheriff Shane Nelson is known to have a proclivity for protecting his inner circle and those he trusts and likes at the expense of the Sheriff’s Office, the broader community and the taxpayer. His track record for protecting and promoting this favored cohort demonstrates a stunning level of arrogance and poor judgement.
This is evidenced by his protection of employees such as Deke DeMars and Ron Brown to his promotion of employees clearly unsuitable or unprepared for the role into which they are being promoted such the promotion of a lieutenant with barely two years of in position experience to the rank of captain.
Sadly, this culture has permeated the Sheriff’s Office leadership team much to the detriment of the agency and its employees. For example, employees without the requisite skill set. experience or temperament but who are favored by leadership are promoted into positions of responsibility for which they are poorly equipped.
In our article “No Girls Allowed”, we highlighted the harassment and discrimination faced by women working at the Sheriff’s Office. The article described a number of complaints against the organization for harassment and discrimination including one resulting in an over $525,000 settlement paid out by the Sheriff’s Office.
Unfortunately, It appears this behavior is embedded and tolerated within the Sheriff’s Office leadership. The names of a number of senior employees, all of whom had sexual relationships with subordinates or colleagues, come to mind. Names such as: Sergeant Richard “Deke” DeMars, Captain Scott Beard, Captain Eric Utter, Captain Michael Espinoza and Lieutenant Michael Biondi.
In Ron Brown’s conviction, we see the same decades old culture permeating the Sheriff’s Office. It shows a stunning degree of arrogance and hubris, as well as a staggering lack of leadership and poor judgement.
The price of this all will no doubt be paid once more by the residents and taxpayers of Deschutes County, as well as the many good and hard working employees at the Sheriff’s Office. We all deserve better.
Follow us on Facebook
