10/12/2026
A long but important read! Thank you Chelsea ❤️
Below is my FULL detailed story about my experience at the Clinton County Sheriff's Office. It is a long read, but I encourage everyone to take the time to read it. I have also attached a photo that breaks it down into cliff notes.
MY STORY:
A Public Statement About Sexual Harassment, Unequal Treatment, Pregnancy and Breastfeeding Discrimination, Retaliation, and Accountability
For nearly a decade, I proudly served the people of Clinton County as a Deputy Sheriff.
I entered law enforcement believing in integrity, fairness, accountability, and the responsibility that comes with wearing a badge. I took my oath seriously, worked hard to build my career, and believed that the people responsible for enforcing the law should also be committed to following it.
I never imagined that some of the most difficult experiences of my career would occur within the very department where I worked.
Today, I am sharing my experience at the Clinton County Sheriff's Office, including the conduct I reported, the opportunities I believe I was unfairly denied, the treatment I experienced during pregnancy and breastfeeding, and the circumstances that ultimately led to my resignation.
My concerns did not begin when I became a mother. They began in 2013, shortly after I started my career.
What followed was nearly nine years of experiences that, taken together, left me believing I had been subjected to s*xual harassment, unequal treatment, discrimination, and retaliation.
I recognize that my allegations and interpretations are not the same as legal findings. I am sharing my firsthand experiences, the information communicated to me, and the records I have retained so that others can understand why I reached those conclusions.
---
2013–2014: Sexual Harassment at the Beginning of My Career
I began working for the Clinton County Sheriff's Office in February 2013.
Like many new deputies, I was eager to learn, prove myself, and build a respected career in law enforcement.
Unfortunately, shortly after beginning my employment, I experienced conduct involving Lieutenant Rissetto that I considered s*xual harassment.
I was directed to provide access to my personal Facebook account. I later learned that photographs of me wearing a bikini at the beach had reportedly been saved, printed, and shown to male deputies, accompanied by comments about the department's "new deputy".
I also experienced inappropriate comments relating to my age and s*x.
On one occasion, Lieutenant Rissetto approached me and rubbed my shoulders without my invitation or permission.
On another occasion, I encountered him changing clothes in his office with the door open, exposing himself in his underwear.
I also believed I was being subjected to unfair criticism and scrutiny regarding my performance and shift assignments.
I was a young deputy attempting to establish myself professionally, and I found these experiences humiliating and intimidating.
In 2014, I submitted a formal complaint to the county Personnel Department.
I was informed that my complaint was investigated and found substantiated.
That finding was significant to me. I had taken the difficult step of reporting a superior officer, and I understood that the investigation had supported my concerns.
I later learned that Lieutenant Rissetto's employment ended. I was given information suggesting that other circumstances may have influenced that decision, but I cannot independently establish the reasons for his termination.
During my early years, I also experienced inappropriate treatment involving a field training officer, Deputy Wenska. I reported derogatory comments, including being called a "good little b*tch," and comments that I understood to insinuate that I had a s*xually transmitted disease.
These were not the professional experiences I expected when I entered law enforcement.
I wanted to be judged by my work, my abilities, and my commitment to serving the public—not by my gender, my appearance, or my willingness to tolerate inappropriate conduct.
---
2014–2015: Training Opportunities and Unequal Treatment
As I continued developing my career, I became concerned that I was being denied training opportunities available to male deputies.
I recall being told that certain training arrangements would be difficult because of travel expenses or because male and female deputies could not share lodging.
I believed these explanations resulted in me being treated differently from male coworkers seeking comparable professional development.
Training matters in law enforcement. It builds skills, improves safety, and creates opportunities for advancement.
I wanted those opportunities and believed I had earned the right to be considered fairly.
Instead, I began to question whether being a woman was affecting my ability to advance within the department.
---
2016: Promotional Opportunities and a Work-Related Injury
In 2016, I took the civil service examination for promotion to sergeant.
The official eligible list established August 24, 2016, placed me third, with a score of 83.
I had worked hard to prepare for that examination and believed my ranking made me a competitive candidate.
Nevertheless, I was passed over for promotion.
I understood that two male employees who were ranked below me were promoted, while I remained in my deputy position.
I was also told that seniority was a consideration when comparing me with another female candidate. Yet I believed seniority and examination ranking were not being applied consistently across all candidates.
I recognize that civil service examination rank is not necessarily the only lawful factor in a promotional decision. My concern was the apparent inconsistency in how the department evaluated candidates.
During this period, I also experienced an on duty knee injury that required temporary work restrictions and physical therapy.
I believed the injury affected how I was considered for certain assignments, including an opportunity involving the Stop-DWI program.
A male employee received the Stop-DWI coordinator assignment I had been interested in while I was dealing with my temporary medical limitations. The position was originally a Sergeant position.
However, the officer that was appointed had not passed the same Sergeant exam that I had taken and did not make it to the eligibility list. Even though I had more knowledge and experience for the position and was on the Sergeant eligibility list, the department decided they no longer wanted the position to be a Sergeant position. This allowed for them to appoint the male officer that had not passed the exam.
These experiences left me questioning whether I was being evaluated according to the same standards as my male coworkers.
---
2018: Another Sergeant Examination and Another Promotion Denial
In 2018, I again took the sergeant examination.
The official eligible list established August 30, 2018, ranked me second, with a score of 80.
I was once again hopeful that my experience, examination performance, and years of service would be recognized.
However, I was passed over again.
A male candidate, who had the same examination score but less seniority than I had, was promoted.
When I sought an explanation, I recall then-Lieutenant Nicholas Leon telling me that I lacked sufficient night-shift experience.
I found that explanation difficult to reconcile with the fact that the promoted employee was assigned to a day-shift sergeant position.
I also recall my previous knee injury and the time I had missed from work being raised during discussions about my qualifications.
I believed that my experience, examination results, and work history warranted fair consideration.
Instead, I felt that the reasons given for not promoting me shifted depending on the circumstances.
By 2018, I had twice placed near the top of a sergeant eligible list, yet I remained a deputy while watching other candidates advance.
I cannot establish that every promotional decision was motivated by discrimination. But I believe the pattern and explanations I received deserve scrutiny.
---
2019: Following the Chain of Command
Throughout my employment, I was expected to follow the department's chain of command when raising workplace concerns.
On May 28, 2019, Major Nicholas Leon sent correspondence reminding personnel to address concerns with their immediate supervisors before escalating them.
I understood that expectation and attempted to follow it.
In the years that followed, I brought concerns to supervisors, command staff, county personnel, union representatives, and ultimately outside agencies.
I did not immediately turn to formal legal complaints.
I first tried to resolve problems through the channels available to me.
That distinction matters because I believe my later complaints were sometimes treated as a problem in themselves, rather than as opportunities to address the issues I was reporting.
---
2020: My First Pregnancy and Return to Work
In 2020, I experienced my first pregnancy while employed by the Sheriff's Office.
During that pregnancy, I received temporary administrative accommodations that allowed me to continue working.
I was not required to participate in the extensive formal accommodation meetings that would later be required during my second pregnancy.
Following the birth of my child, I returned to work and continued breastfeeding.
I expressed breast milk during breaks and attempted to balance the responsibilities of motherhood with the demands of law enforcement.
I wanted to remain a productive deputy, continue my career, and provide breast milk for my infant.
I did not anticipate that doing so would become one of the most difficult workplace conflicts I had experienced.
---
2021: Breastfeeding Restrictions and My Complaints
February 2021: My Productivity Was Questioned
On February 16, 2021, my assigned Sergeant verbally counseled me regarding concerns about my productivity.
At that time, I was working eight-hour shifts and taking time during the day to express breast milk.
I disagreed with the criticism.
I had maintained records comparing my activity with that of other deputies, including deputies who worked longer shifts and spent substantial portions of their workdays at the station.
I believed my need to pump was being scrutinized in a way that ordinary breaks taken by other employees were not.
I raised these concerns through my chain of command, including Lieutenant William Dominy and Major Nicholas Leon.
I was told the matter would be addressed, but I did not feel that the underlying concerns were resolved.
February 23, 2021: The Nursing Mother's Policy
On February 23, I was presented with a nursing mother's policy that significantly changed how I was expected to express breast milk during my shifts.
Under the policy as it was applied to me, I was required to call out of service, notify a supervisor when I began and ended pumping, and use accrued leave time or make up the time at beginning or end of my shift.
I was also directed to use a designated pumping location at the Sheriff's Office.
As a patrol deputy, I could be assigned to locations approximately 45 minutes away.
I recall being told that I could still eat on duty with pay but could not pump while eating because I would not be in full uniform and therefore could not be considered on duty.
I found this reasoning difficult to understand when other deputies were permitted to take meal breaks, take off their exterior vest and attend to personal needs during paid work time.
My objection was not that I should receive more paid break time than other employees.
My objection was that I believed I was being denied equal treatment because the break I needed was for breastfeeding.
The stress and logistical difficulties affected my ability to maintain my milk supply and continue working.
I ultimately used several weeks of leave between March and April 2021.
My Union's Initial Response
When I first sought assistance, I recall being told by my union that nothing could be done.
I later obtained legal assistance, and then a formal union grievance was pursued.
I found it discouraging that I felt compelled to seek outside help before my concerns received that level of attention.
---
May 2021: My Formal Notice of Claim
On May 12, 2021, I signed and notarized a formal Notice of Claim against Clinton County and the Sheriff of Clinton County.
It outlined my concerns about breastfeeding restrictions, unequal treatment, lost leave time, and the personal and financial consequences I believed resulted from the department's actions.
On May 13, 2021, that Notice of Claim was delivered to the Clinton County Sheriff's Department, addressed to Sheriff David Favro.
I have the USPS certified-mail return receipt documenting that delivery.
This is an important fact in my timeline.
It establishes that my formal allegations reached the department months before several significant employment actions occurred.
I cannot prove the exact date Sheriff Favro personally reviewed the document. However, I can document when it was delivered to his department.
---
May–June 2021: My Second Pregnancy and a Different Accommodation Process
In May 2021, I informed Major Leon that I was pregnant again.
I was experiencing significant morning sickness, including frequent vomiting, and requested a temporary stationary assignment with easier access to restroom facilities.
I wanted to continue working.
I was not asking to be excused from my responsibilities.
However, unlike my first pregnancy, I was required to provide additional medical paperwork and participate in a formal accommodation meeting.
On June 3, 2021, I attended a meeting involving Sheriff David Favro, Major Nicholas Leon, Personnel Director Kim Kinblom, and County Labor Relations Attorney Meghan Zedick.
I proposed several possible assignments, including positions at the Department of Social Services, airport, community college, and dispatch.
During the meeting, I recall Sheriff Favro comparing my s*x, physical size, and weight to those of a male employee working at one of the locations I requested.
I understood his comments to suggest that I was less suitable for the assignment because I was a smaller female.
I found that deeply troubling.
I was a trained law enforcement officer who had already performed the duties of a deputy.
I also knew of male employees who had received modified assignments for injuries involving their shoulders, feet, or hands without what I understood to be a comparable high-level meeting process.
I was offered limited administrative work, including filing and removing staples from documents.
I believed my pregnancy-related needs were being evaluated differently from temporary medical restrictions experienced by male employees.
---
July 2021: Sheriff Favro Denies My Union Grievance
My union grievance concerning breastfeeding restrictions was denied by Sheriff Favro at the initial stage.
County grievance records document his position that the collective bargaining agreement did not expressly guarantee paid meal breaks.
On July 13, 2021, the Clinton County Legislative Grievance Committee held a hearing.
My union attorney argued that deputies had historically received paid meal breaks and that I should receive comparable treatment when expressing breast milk.
Sheriff Favro and County Labor Relations Attorney Meghan Zedick argued that the collective bargaining agreement did not require paid breaks and that New York State law did not require employers to pay for pumping breaks.
The committee subsequently denied my grievance by majority vote.
I disagreed with that decision.
To me, the central issue was not simply whether every deputy was contractually entitled to a paid lunch.
It was whether a breastfeeding employee was being treated less favorably than coworkers who were routinely allowed paid time for ordinary breaks.
Questions About the Grievance Committee
Official county records identify Legislator Mark Henry as chairman of the committee that considered my grievance.
I also understand that Mr. Henry had a business relationship with Sheriff Favro outside of their government roles.
Because Sheriff Favro had already denied my grievance and was defending the department's position before the committee, I believe that relationship raises questions about the appearance of impartiality.
I am not asserting that the relationship alone proves a conflict of interest or improper influence over the committee's decision.
However, I believe public employees should be able to trust that grievances involving powerful county officials will receive independent and impartial consideration.
---
August–September 2021: My EEOC Charge and Removal From My School Resource Officer Assignment
On August 30, 2021, I filed a formal discrimination charge with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The EEOC portal reflects that filing date, and the charge document was uploaded to the portal on September 2.
I do not know exactly when the Sheriff's Office received notice of that EEOC charge.
Nevertheless, the events that followed are particularly significant to me.
On September 9, 2021, I was informed that I was being removed from my School Resource Officer assignment.
Lieutenant Dominy informed me of the decision in the presence of union representatives.
I was told the removal was not related to my job performance, but I was not provided a clear explanation.
I had been preparing for that assignment and wanted to continue working in a school setting.
I requested consideration for another school assignment, but that request was denied.
The following day, September 10, after submitting medical documentation relating to my pregnancy, I was informed that further paperwork and another accommodation meeting were required.
According to my notes, I had been assigned to a jail post without food, water or access to a bathroom for several hours that day despite the difficulties I was experiencing with my pregnancy.
I was then directed, by a letter handed to me by Undersheriff Craig, not to return to work until the additional accommodation process was completed.
I had to use available leave to maintain my wages.
The Timeline That Raises Questions
- February 17, 2021: Reported complaint and concerns regarding Sergeant to supervisors.
- February 23, 2021: Initial Nursing Mother's Policy established.
- May 12, 2021: I signed and notarized my Notice of Claim.
- May 13, 2021: The Notice of Claim was delivered to the Sheriff's Department, addressed to Sheriff Favro.
-June 3, 2021: Required to attend a formal accommodation meeting that had never been required in the past.
- July 2021: The county grievance records documented Sheriff Favro's initial denial, and the Legislative Grievance Committee denied my grievance.
- August 30, 2021: I filed my EEOC discrimination charge.
- September 2, 2021: The EEOC charge document was uploaded to the portal.
- September 9, 2021: I was informed that I was being removed from my School Resource Officer assignment.
- September 10, 2021: I was directed not to return to work pending additional pregnancy accommodation requirements.
I recognize that the timing of these events does not, by itself, establish unlawful retaliation.
I also cannot establish that the department knew about my EEOC filing before the September 9 and 10 decision.
But I believe the documented sequence, combined with my previous complaints and the treatment I experienced, warrants serious questions about how those decisions were made.
---
September 27, 2021: Another Pregnancy Accommodation Meeting
On September 27, I attended another accommodation meeting.
I recall Sheriff Favro expressing the view that my pregnancy could not be compared to a temporary injury requiring light duty.
I found that statement particularly troubling because I knew of male officers who had been accommodated for temporary injuries.
I was again offered limited administrative duties, including removing staples and filing paperwork.
I was also told I could not carry my fi***rm while performing those duties.
I questioned that restriction because, to my understanding, my physician had not prohibited me from carrying a fi***rm and I was permitted to carry a fi***rm during my first pregnancy.
I believed the department was imposing restrictions on me that were not being applied consistently to other employees with temporary medical limitations.
I wanted to work, and I wanted the opportunity to contribute meaningfully.
Instead, I felt that each accommodation request became another obstacle.
---
Late 2021: Continued Workplace Difficulties
In October 2021, I experienced another incident that contributed to my concerns about how I was being treated.
I was told that Sheriff Favro directed that I could no longer use the Keurig machine in an administrative office, even though other employees continued to use it.
Considered alone, that may seem insignificant.
But when added to the events I had experienced throughout the year, it contributed to my belief that I was being singled out.
In November 2021, I understood that an agreement had been reached concerning the restoration of 282.25 hours of leave time connected to my breastfeeding grievance. Additionally a new nursing mother policy and light duty policy would be implemented in exchange for dropping all of my claims and returning all video evidence I had secured.
However, I experienced delays before that leave time was restored, which I understood did not occur until January 2022.
By the end of 2021, I felt that I had spent much of the year fighting for fair treatment instead of being allowed to focus on my duties as a Deputy Sheriff.
---
2022: Returning From Maternity Leave and Continued Unequal Treatment
In January, 2022, I gave birth to my daughter.
Following maternity leave, I returned to work while recovering from childbirth and undergoing physical therapy.
I needed temporary light duty.
I was again assigned administrative work involving filing and removing staples.
I was aware of a male deputy who, according to my understanding, had been offered a dispatch assignment while on light duty.
I questioned why that opportunity appeared available to him but had not been offered to me under comparable circumstances.
I was not asking to avoid work.
I wanted an assignment that would allow me to continue contributing while recovering.
May 2022: Working in the Civil Office
On May 23, 2022, I was assigned to the civil office to cover a vacancy.
I was able to perform meaningful work in that position, and the assignment also better accommodated my breastfeeding and family responsibilities.
On May 30, I was medically cleared to return to full duty.
I requested permission to remain in the civil office temporarily until a replacement could be found.
I understood that Major Leon approved that arrangement.
For a period of time, I believed I had found a workable way to continue my career.
Unfortunately, additional conflicts followed.
---
June 2022: Further Complaints and Disciplinary Action
During June 2022, I experienced workplace difficulties involving a Sergeant.
I believed I was being excluded from communications, overlooked during briefings, and denied information necessary to perform my job.
On June 23, 2022, I raised concerns about the situation and reported them to Major Leon.
On June 28, I received counseling concerning two instances of tardiness, one involving five minutes and another involving six minutes.
I was directed to use 15 minutes of accrued leave time for each incident.
I believed the response was inconsistent with the treatment of other deputies who had arrived late.
I was also concerned about the timing, given that I had recently complained about the supervisor involved.
I sought union assistance and brought my concerns to county personnel.
Again, I felt that I was attempting to follow the proper procedures while experiencing further difficulties after speaking up.
I cannot establish that the counseling was retaliatory simply because it followed my complaint. However, I believe the timing and differences in treatment contributed to a pattern that deserved examination.
---
July 13, 2022: My Resignation
By July 2022, I felt emotionally exhausted by the cumulative effects of the workplace experiences I had endured.
Over nearly nine years, I had reported s*xual harassment, questioned promotional decisions, sought fair training opportunities, requested pregnancy accommodations, challenged breastfeeding restrictions, filed a union grievance, submitted a Notice of Claim, and pursued an EEOC charge.
I had repeatedly attempted to resolve my concerns through supervisors, department leadership, county personnel, and union representation.
I believed that the working environment had become increasingly difficult after I raised complaints.
On July 13, 2022, I resigned from the Clinton County Sheriff's Office.
That decision was painful.
I had worked hard to build a career in law enforcement.
I had invested years in serving my community, developing my skills, and pursuing advancement.
I did not want to walk away from that career.
But I believed the stress and ongoing workplace conflicts were affecting my well-being, my family, and my ability to continue working in the department.
I left because I no longer believed I could remain in that environment.
---
2022–2023: My Attempts to Obtain Accountability Continued
My concerns about the Clinton County Sheriff's Office did not end when my employment ended.
On November 18, 2022, I submitted a formal written complaint directly to Sheriff David Favro regarding conduct I believed was inappropriate and unprofessional by two members of his department.
My complaint addressed a Facebook account operating under the name "Pedro Sanchez," which I alleged had been created and used by a deputy to make statements about me. I also raised concerns about a sergeant publicly discussing my employment history and sharing statistics about my work on Facebook while on duty.
On November 23, 2022, I followed up because I had not received confirmation that my complaints were being investigated.
Sheriff Favro responded that my emails had been received and were under review.
I never received a final written determination explaining the outcome.
I do know that shortly after raising my concerns, both officers were promoted to Detective.
In August 2023, I again contacted Sheriff Favro and county officials, this time regarding allegations involving a School Resource Officer and inappropriate communications with a student. I specifically requested clarification about whether the allegations had been investigated and what, if any, action had been taken.
I subsequently reported these concerns to another outside contact after receiving no response to my inquiries.
I do not claim to know the outcome of investigations that were never explained to me. I do know that the officer was removed from his School Resource Position but still works for the agency. I do believe the public deserves to know how serious complaints are received, investigated, documented, and resolved.
My experience has left me with a question that I believe deserves an answer:
When concerns are brought directly to the highest levels of law enforcement leadership, what accountability exists to ensure those concerns are meaningfully addressed?
Why I Am Speaking Out Now
Some people may ask why I am speaking publicly about events that occurred years ago.
My answer is that leaving the Sheriff's Office did not erase my experiences or the concerns I raised.
I believe the public deserves to understand how allegations of s*xual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation are handled within institutions entrusted with enforcing the law.
I believe the public deserves to ask difficult questions about leadership, fairness, and accountability.
And I believe employees should be able to report misconduct without fearing that doing so will damage their careers.
I have retained records relating to many of these events, including civil service eligible lists, my Notice of Claim, USPS proof of delivery, county grievance correspondence, EEOC filing records, and communications concerning my employment.
Not every event I have described is independently established by those documents. Some are my firsthand recollections, and others involve information communicated to me.
I believe those distinctions matter, and I welcome fair scrutiny of the evidence.
This is not about attacking every officer who wears a badge.
I served alongside people who cared deeply about their profession and their community.
I still believe in law enforcement.
But believing in law enforcement does not require unquestioning support for the decisions of its leadership.
Public officials should be held accountable for how they treat employees, how they respond to complaints, and how they exercise their authority.
No woman should have to choose between breastfeeding her child and protecting her career.
No pregnant employee should feel that motherhood makes her less valuable.
No employee should be afraid to report s*xual harassment or unequal treatment.
And no public official should be above legitimate questions about their decisions.
I am not asking anyone to accept every conclusion I have reached without examining the evidence.
I am asking people to look at the documented timeline, consider the experiences I have described, and ask whether the leadership of the Clinton County Sheriff's Office met the standards of fairness and accountability the public has a right to expect.
For every woman who has been afraid to speak up.
For every mother who has felt that her career was threatened because she had children.
For every employee who believed reporting mistreatment would only make things worse.
And for every member of the public who believes government officials must be accountable for their actions.
That is why I am telling my story.
I once wore the badge proudly, and I still believe in what it should represent.
This isn't about hating the badge. I once wore one myself.
It's about expecting the people behind it to be accountable like everyone else.
The badge should represent accountability—not protection from it.
