Former Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office Captain Files Legal Claims Alleging Sexual Harassment, Retaliation, and Wrongful Termination
San Diego, California — March 26, 2026 — Antonyan Miranda, LLP announces that its client, Vanessa Vaden, a former Captain with the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office, has initiated legal action following the issuance of a Right-to-Sue notice by the California Civil Rights Department.
Ms. Vaden, a more than 20-year law enforcement veteran, alleges that her career was derailed after she reported misconduct involving a high-ranking law enforcement official, including sexual harassment and inappropriate relationships with subordinates.
According to the complaint, Ms. Vaden was subjected to unwelcome and pervasive sexual conduct by a senior official who held significant influence over her career. The complaint further alleges that after she reported misconduct and cooperated with an internal investigation, she became the target of a coordinated pattern of retaliation.
The alleged retaliation included the initiation of an internal affairs investigation against Ms. Vaden, dissemination of damaging rumors, removal of her job responsibilities, and actions that undermined her professional standing within the department. Ultimately, Ms. Vaden’s employment was terminated on February 18, 2026.
The Civil Rights Department issued Ms. Vaden an immediate Right-to-Sue notice on March 24, 2026, authorizing her to pursue claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, including claims for sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation.
“Ms. Vaden dedicated over two decades of her life to public service and built an exemplary record,” said Emilia Arutunian, veteran employment attorney at Antonyan Miranda, LLP and counsel for Ms. Vaden. “The allegations in this case reflect serious concerns about abuse of authority and the consequences faced by employees who report misconduct within law enforcement agencies.”
The complaint names the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office, the County of Sacramento, the City of Elk Grove, the Elk Grove Police Department, and Robert “Bobby” Davis as respondents.
Ms. Vaden seeks to hold the defendants accountable for alleged violations of California employment law, including failure to prevent harassment and retaliation, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
This press release summarizes allegations contained in a formal complaint. All allegations are contested, and the defendants have not yet responded in court.
Media Contact
Antonyan Miranda, LLP
marketing@antonyanmiranda.com
619.696.1100
EXHIBIT 1
Attachment to CRD Complaint
Complainant: Vanessa Vaden
Respondents: Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office; County of Sacramento; City of Elk Grove; Elk Grove Police Department; Robert “Bobby” Davis
Statement of Facts
Vanessa Vaden devoted more than two decades of her life to serving the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office (SSO). She began her career in 2001 as a Deputy Sheriff Recruit and steadily built a reputation as an exceptionally capable, ethical, and dedicated law enforcement professional. Over the course of her career, she earned promotions, commendations, and the respect of her colleagues and community. She maintained an impeccable disciplinary record and consistently received outstanding performance evaluations. Ms. Vaden intended to finish her career at the Sheriff’s Office she had served so faithfully.
Instead, her career ended following sexual harassment by a senior law enforcement official and a subsequent pattern of retaliation after she reported misconduct.
Abuse of Power and Sexual Harassment by a Senior Law Enforcement Official
Shortly after Ms. Vaden was promoted to Sergeant, she came under the supervision of Robert “Bobby” Davis, then a Captain in Internal Affairs for the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office. Davis initially presented himself as a mentor and advocate for her career. He praised her professionalism, told her she had extrao
rdinary potential, and personally recruited her to work under his command as an Internal Affairs investigator.
What began as mentorship quickly turned into something far more troubling.
Davis began relentlessly pursuing Ms. Vaden sexually. He sent her a steady stream of sexually explicit text messages, photographs, and videos—often during work hours and while he was physically inside Sheriff’s Headquarters. On multiple occasions, he sent explicit images of himself and propositions that were graphic, humiliating, and impossible to ignore. This conduct was unwelcome, severe, and pervasive, and occurred within the workplace and during work hours.
He invited her to call in sick from work so she could meet him at his home for sex while his wife was away. He sent her messages urging her to join him on work trips so they could be alone together. At least once, he sent her a photograph of his erect penis while he was on duty inside the Sheriff’s Office.
At the time, Davis was not just a coworker. He was a senior Internal Affairs Commander with enormous influence over the careers of other officers—including Ms. Vaden. He controlled assignments, investigations, and reputations. He openly bragged about his close personal friendships with members of the Sheriff’s Executive Staff and repeatedly emphasized that he could influence promotions, assignments, and disciplinary decisions.
Later, when Sheriff Cooper was elected, Davis boasted about their longstanding and close personal relationship dating back to their prior service together at SSO. Indeed, their ongoing association is widely known, and they frequently interacted outside of the workplace.
Davis made it clear that crossing him would have consequences and openly acknowledged to Ms. Vaden that he had retaliated against individuals who had angered him.
Under these circumstances, Davis’s conduct was coercive. Ms. Vaden reasonably feared that rejecting him or reporting his behavior could jeopardize her career. Over time, Davis leveraged this power imbalance to draw her into a relationship.
A Pattern of Exploiting Subordinates
During their relationship, Davis admitted to Ms. Vaden that she was not the first subordinate he had pursued. He described multiple extramarital affairs with women who worked under his authority throughout his career at the Sheriff’s Office from the time he was a Field Training Officer. Despite this troubling pattern, Davis’s career continued to flourish.
In 2020, Davis retired from the Sheriff’s Office and was hired as Assistant Chief of Police for the Elk Grove Police Department (EGPD). Two years later, he became Chief of Police. Throughout this time, he maintained a highly visible personal relationship with Ms. Vaden.
Betrayal and Discovery of Another Affair
In December 2023, Ms. Vaden’s world was upended. She and her teenage daughter inadvertently discovered that Davis was secretly engaged in yet another affair—this time with one of his female subordinates within the Elk Grove Police Department. During an innocent visit to Davis’s house, Ms. Vaden and her daughter discovered the subordinate hiding in Davis’s backyard, getting dressed, in the pouring rain.
Ms. Vaden attempted to handle the situation with dignity and professionalism. She tried to quietly end the relationship and move forward with her life. Davis, however, panicked.
He begged Ms. Vaden not to reveal the affair to the City Manager because he feared losing his job and his second pension. He pleaded with her to keep his secret, sending a desperate message asking for her confidentiality and expressing fear of losing his position. Understanding Davis’s influence, at the time, Ms. Vaden had no intention of reporting the incident or destroying Davis’s career.
Anonymous Letters and the Beginning of Retaliation
However, in April 2025, Ms. Vaden received the first anonymous letter at her home revealing Davis’s ongoing affair with the subordinate employee. The envelope bore the return address of the Elk Grove Police Department.
The following day, Ms. Vaden discreetly and professionally confronted Davis with the letter in the privacy of his office at EGPD and ended their relationship. She informed him that she intended to remain professional in all work-related matters. Ms. Vaden did so knowing Davis had significant influence over her career through his relationship with Sheriff Cooper, and in light of prior statements Davis had made regarding his ability to impact her professional standing. She remained composed and professional and concluded the conversation by briefly embracing him, thanking him for the memories they had shared, and conveying that he was free to openly pursue his relationship with his subordinate employee.
Ms. Vaden then removed a photograph of the two of them that Davis had displayed in his office, without his objection. As she was leaving, Ms. Vaden briefly approached the subordinate’s office but did not find her present. She left the photograph on the subordinate’s desk to signal that her relationship with Davis was over, and then exited the building.
Almost immediately afterward, Ms. Vaden received communications from Davis emphasizing the importance of her silence. Ms. Vaden interpreted them as threats, given Davis’s reputation and influence within both the Elk Grove Police Department and the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office. Davis told Ms. Vaden on multiple occasions that Sheriff Cooper intended to bring him back to the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office in an executive leadership role and support him as a future candidate for Sheriff. Davis also conveyed these plans to others. These statements reinforced Ms. Vaden’s understanding that Davis had significant political influence and protection within SSO leadership.
Fearful of retaliation, Ms. Vaden maintained cordial and professional communications with Davis and did not report what she witnessed to leadership.
Second Letter & Reporting the Misconduct
However, in June 2025, Ms. Vaden received a second anonymous letter at her home. Fearful and uncomfortable, Ms. Vaden found the courage to report the situation to the City of Elk Grove Human Resources Department.
She reported the situation to the Human Resources Director who implored her to formally report the information, explicitly stating if there was evidence that he had an affair with a subordinate, it would indicate he had lied to the City Manager. Ms. Vaden expressed her fear of retaliation in light of Davis’s position and relationship with Sheriff Cooper, but the director nevertheless persisted, repeatedly urging her to come forward with any misconduct she was aware of despite her expressed concerns.
Ultimately, Ms. Vaden cooperated with the Human Resources Director’s request. She provided a detailed and factual account of her discovery of Davis and his subordinate at his house, as well as the threatening anonymous letters she received thereafter. Ms. Vaden’s report of misconduct and cooperation in the City’s investigation constituted protected activity under California law.
Ms. Vaden also described her concern that EGPD leadership tolerated inappropriate supervisor-subordinate relationships, which contributed to her fear of retaliation. Upon information and belief, Davis promoted a lieutenant and later assigned him to command EGPD Internal Affairs despite being aware of that lieutenant’s history of an inappropriate sexual relationship with a subordinate. Ms. Vaden further understood that, in another incident, an EGPD sergeant was discovered engaging in sexual conduct with a subordinate in a vehicle, and that Davis minimized the incident as “consensual.” These circumstances reinforced Ms. Vaden’s belief that reporting misconduct would not be taken seriously and could expose her to retaliation.
City’s Response and Failure to Prevent Retaliation:
The City failed to protect Ms. Vaden from retaliation. Upon information and belief, the City did not adequately investigate Davis’s threats. As word of Ms. Vaden’s complaint spread, Davis and others began spreading rumors that she herself had written the anonymous letters in an attempt to destroy his career.
The smear campaign escalated quickly. Davis publicly referred to Ms. Vaden as “crazy.” He told another employee that all he needed to do was “make one call” to Sheriff Cooper and Ms. Vaden’s career would be finished. Less than two weeks after Ms. Vaden participated in Elk Grove’s investigation, Ms. Vaden became the subject of an internal affairs investigation.
Retaliatory Internal Investigation
The effects of Davis’s smear campaign quickly spread into the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office. (“SSO”). Rather than protecting Ms. Vaden, SSO launched an Internal Affairs investigation —not into Davis’s misconduct, but into Ms. Vaden.
On September 17, 2025, a retired EGPD employee filed a formal Internal Affairs complaint against Ms. Vaden, alleging “harassment” and “unprofessional conduct”. The allegations closely mirrored a retaliatory text message threat Davis had made to Ms. Vaden on August 5, 2025. The timing and circumstances strongly indicate the complaint was retaliatory.
That employee openly disclosed that Davis had promised him a post-retirement position as a background investigator. Upon information and belief, Davis leveraged his hiring authority and used the retired employee, as a proxy to initiate the Internal Affairs complaint in a calculated effort to retaliate and destroy Ms. Vaden’s career. And he succeeded.
Indeed, there is no documented evidence substantiating any harassment or unprofessional conduct by Ms. Vaden toward that employee. As part of that investigation, Ms. Vaden was accused of writing the anonymous letters she had reported and of engaging in “harassment,” including placing a photograph of herself and Davis on the subordinate’s desk on April 23, 2025, after she had ended the relationship. That alleged conduct predated the complaint and ensuing investigation by nearly five months.
During the investigation, Ms. Vaden was subjected to humiliating treatment. Her department phone and computer were seized. Her email access was repeatedly disabled. She was excluded from critical operational decision-making within her own command, undermining her authority and ability to effectively lead. She was also issued a sweeping cease-and-desist directive prohibiting contact with Elk Grove Police Department personnel, which further reflected Davis’s influence over the SSO investigation.
These actions crippled her ability to perform her duties and publicly signaled to colleagues that she was under investigation. Furthermore, the rumors continued.
Emotional and Physical Collapse
The relentless stress, humiliation, and professional isolation took a severe toll on Ms. Vaden’s health. On December 2, 2025, her physician placed her on medical leave due to serious emotional distress and physical symptoms caused by the retaliatory, hostile work environment.
While she was on medical leave, SSO leadership made an unprecedented move, reassigning another captain to take over her command with vague communications that created the impression she had been removed for misconduct.
Rumors spread throughout the Department that she had been placed on leave because of wrongdoing.
The reputation she had spent decades building was being dismantled in real time after she engaged in protected activity and sought protection from retaliation.
Termination
On December 29, 2025, Ms. Vaden was served with a proposed discipline of termination and placed on administrative leave.
On January 20, 2026, the SSO informed her they would pack up her office and remove her personal belongings, indicating that the decision to terminate her employment had effectively been made prior to the completion of her due process rights.
Still, desperate to salvage her career, she challenged the proposed discipline and, through counsel, participated in a Skelly hearing on February 11, 2026. Despite her efforts, the Department pressed forward toward termination.
Ms. Vaden’s Counsel reviewed the “investigation” and noted that the investigation was profoundly biased and produced no physical or forensic evidence establishing that Ms. Vaden authored the anonymous letters at issue. The Chiefs’ findings relied upon illogical and unsupported conclusions. Specifically, they determined that Ms. Vaden had been dishonest regarding her knowledge of Davis’s affair with his subordinate on the basis that the Elk Grove investigation had classified the allegation of a sexual relationship as “not sustained.”
Ms. Vaden’s Counsel argued the reasoning for termination was and is fundamentally flawed. A “not sustained” disposition in an administrative investigation does not equate to a finding that the alleged conduct did not occur; rather, it signifies that there was insufficient evidence to meet the applicable burden of proof; meaning the investigation neither substantiated nor disproved the sexual relationship by a preponderance of the evidence. Furthermore, investigators failed to meaningfully address or pursue a witness’s statement indicating that she and other members of EGPD had become aware of Davis’s alleged affair with his subordinate as early as 2024, well before the anonymous letters began circulating. This information was neither adequately acknowledged nor subjected to further investigation, despite its clear relevance.
By equating a “not sustained” finding with proof that no affair occurred, the Chiefs intentionally adopted an irrational interpretation designed to improperly frame Ms. Vaden as dishonest to support their predetermined disposition of termination.
Notably, almost immediately following the conclusion of the investigation, the two Internal Affairs Investigators involved in Ms. Vaden’s case were granted specialty assignments, with one of them receiving a ten percent pay raise. The timing and nature of these appointments further support an unwarranted investigation with a predetermined outcome. The proximity of these career advancements to the completion of the investigation creates the appearance that these opportunities were conferred as a reward for their participation in, and cooperation with, a biased and retaliatory investigation, leading to Ms. Vaden’s illegal termination.
Furthermore, in December 2025, the Elk Grove Human Resources Director issued a written notice of disposition regarding the Elk Grove investigation. The letter revealed that the City exercised selective discretion in determining which allegations of misconduct it would formally investigate. Upon information and belief, they did not address numerous allegations of inappropriate severe sexual comments and conduct attributed to Davis in the workplace with other women, not just the subordinate at hand.
The investigation itself was conducted in an incomplete manner, including the failure to interview at least one identified key witness who reportedly observed Davis inappropriately touch his subordinate in the workplace within CCTV camera coverage.
Additionally, the City of Elk Grove nominally investigated whether Davis influenced his subordinate’s promotion and concluded that allegation was unfounded, it disregarded the fact that Davis personally selected the members of her interview panel - individuals who included his personal acquaintances -thereby exercising clear and direct influence over the promotional process. This circumstance undermines the credibility of the findings and raises serious concerns regarding the objectivity, thoroughness, and integrity of an investigation conducted under the direction and control of the City, suggesting it was neither impartial nor adequately executed.
Shortly after issuing this notice, the Elk Grove Human Resources Director resigned from her position.
Furthermore, the Lieutenant referenced above resigned while under investigation for sexual misconduct, conduct that appears to have been not only modeled but implicitly condoned by Davis.
On February 18, 2026, the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office terminated Ms. Vaden’s employment.
As a result of the Respondents’ actions, Ms. Vaden has lost the career she spent more than twenty years building. She has suffered severe emotional distress, humiliation, reputational damage, and the loss of her professional future in law enforcement.
The timing and sequence of events demonstrate a direct causal connection between Ms. Vaden’s protected activity and the adverse actions taken against her, including the internal investigation and her termination.
