Nearly thirty years of public service ended with a closed door meeting, a severance document placed on a desk, and a termination that now sits at the center of a federal civil rights lawsuit.
Robert “Rob” Brandes, the longtime Director of Public Works for Josephine County, has filed a federal complaint accusing county officials of violating his constitutional rights, damaging his reputation, and dismissing him from his position just months before a major retirement milestone. The lawsuit names Josephine County and Former Commissioner Andreas Blech as defendants and seeks financial damages along with other relief.
Brandes had worked for Josephine County since April 1996. For most of that time he oversaw the county’s public works operations, one of the largest and most visible departments within county government. His termination in July 2025 came just short of thirty years of service, a point that would have significantly increased his retirement benefits under the Oregon Public Employees Retirement System.
The lawsuit describes the moment bluntly, stating that “Brandes’ property right to the thirty year PERS benefit was eliminated upon his termination from Josephine County.”
At the heart of the case is not simply the fact that Brandes lost his job, but how it allegedly happened.
Josephine County rules and its governing charter require that the dismissal of a department head be approved by a majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners. Brandes claims that never occurred.
Instead, according to the complaint, Commissioner Andreas Blech acted alone when he terminated the county’s public works director.
Brandes alleges that the decision bypassed procedures meant to protect senior county employees from unilateral political action. The lawsuit argues that the process violated both county policy and constitutional protections guaranteed to public employees.
The complaint states that Brandes received no explanation for the termination and no opportunity to defend himself before the decision was made.
“Brandes was afforded no hearing on his termination and given no reason for his termination,” the filing states.
To understand the lawsuit, one must look back at the first months of 2025, when Josephine County government was undergoing significant change. A newly seated board of commissioners had taken office and discussions were underway about budgets, restructuring, and staffing.
According to the lawsuit, several meetings related to county fleet operations and administrative restructuring occurred without notifying Brandes, despite the fact that the Public Works Department was responsible for those operations.
At one point in early April, Brandes met privately with Commissioner Blech to discuss possible departmental changes tied to budget pressures. During that meeting, Brandes says he was reassured that his department would remain unchanged.
The complaint quotes Blech telling him there would be “no changes to Public Works.”
Less than three weeks later, Brandes says he was called into Blech’s office and handed a severance agreement.
The lawsuit claims Brandes had never been disciplined during his tenure and had not received any performance evaluations suggesting problems with his work. Faced with the unexpected offer, Brandes attempted to negotiate terms that would allow him to remain technically employed long enough to reach his thirty-year retirement mark.
The proposal involved using accrued paid time off to extend his employment through September 2025.
According to the complaint, that arrangement was discussed but never finalized. Instead, Brandes’ employment ended July 8, 2025.
The retirement issue is a central part of the case. Brandes argues that reaching thirty years of service would have increased his pension and provided long-term financial security. The lawsuit claims the termination stripped him of that opportunity.
But the legal dispute did not end there.
After leaving county employment, Brandes accepted a job with the City of Gold Hill at a lower salary. While working for Josephine County he had arranged for several unused file cabinets stored in a county building to be transferred to the City of Gold Hill.
The lawsuit states that the transfer followed an existing county surplus property rule allowing equipment to be transferred directly to another public agency.
What happened next forms the basis of a separate claim within the lawsuit.
During a county commissioner meeting in August 2025, the transfer was discussed publicly and concerns were raised that the action could represent a criminal act. The county directed its human resources department to investigate the matter and contacted Grants Pass Public Safety.
Brandes argues that those public statements effectively accused him of theft.
According to the complaint, a Grants Pass officer later contacted Brandes and indicated that the transfer complied with county policy and that no criminal violation had occurred.
Brandes contends that the damage to his reputation had already been done.
The lawsuit includes claims of defamation along with statutory tort violations and negligence. It seeks compensation for lost income, reduced retirement benefits, and reputational harm. The complaint also asks the court to award punitive damages against Commissioner Blech.
While Brandes’ lawsuit focuses on his own termination, it is only one of several legal disputes currently involving Josephine County government. Multiple individuals have filed separate lawsuits related to employment decisions and administrative actions within county leadership.
Each case involves different allegations and different circumstances, and each will be examined independently as the legal process moves forward.
The increasing number of lawsuits arrives at a time when Josephine County’s political environment remains unsettled and under a microscope. Former Josephine County Commissioners John West and Chris Barnett, both of whom were recalled from office by voters last year, were named in two separate lawsuits filed this past week involving related allegations and circumstances. These legal challenges are unfolding as West has announced his intention to return to county government and is once again campaigning for a seat on the Board of Commissioners.
The convergence of lawsuits, political campaigns, and administrative disputes has created an environment in which decisions made inside county government are facing increased attention and examination from both inside and outside the courtroom.
For Brandes, the lawsuit represents an attempt to challenge what he describes as an unlawful dismissal after nearly three decades of service.
For Josephine County, the case raises broader questions about how personnel decisions were made during a period of political transition and whether established procedures were followed.
As the federal case moves through the court system, depositions, document discovery, and legal arguments will begin to shape the factual record.
What ultimately emerges from that process may determine not only the outcome of Brandes’ case, but also how Josephine County government handles its authority, its employees, and the boundaries of power inside one of Southern Oregon’s most closely watched county governments.