An investigation into the former head of the state’s human resource department spurred by a litany of wide-ranging anonymous complaints allege Jessica Knieling did not always follow the state’s own rules around hiring and disciplining employees.
Knieling was fired in June. The report was recently completed and released on Friday.
“The complainants alleged that Ms. Knieling abused the power and authority of her position and manipulated or violated the very HR policies her office was responsible for overseeing,” the report states.
Of the 22 complaints raised against Knieling and other staff, the independent investigator hired by the state, Heidi Mason, said three of the complaints against Knieling were fully or partially substantiated.
In a previous interview with OPB, Knieling said she was fired after refusing to resign. She said she was trying to hold public officials accountable.
On Friday, Knieling’s attorney sent a statement, saying Knieling believes the investigation was “deeply flawed.”
“Ms. Knieling is disappointed that the investigation does not present a full and accurate picture of her work, her dedication to employees and the state, and the decisions she made in order to hold public officials accountable and uphold the public trust,” wrote Whitney Stark, Knieling’s attorney.
Knieling also did not have an opportunity to review the report before it was released to the public, her attorney noted. She said she looks forward to providing a detailed response, including to what she called factual inaccuracies and omissions.
The Oregon State Capitol in Salem, Ore. on Monday, Feb 2, 2026.
Saskia Hatvany / OPB
Some of the complaints in the investigation deal with Knieling’s hiring practices and allege she appointed three staff without all the appropriate documentation.
In one instance, even when the then-head of the Department of Administrative Service approved a hiring, Knieling went through several of the required steps but didn’t document the “applicable policy criteria” nor explain the individual’s qualifications in written documents. The investigator found that complaint to be partially substantiated.
The second complaint says Knieling blocked a former employee from gaining future employment. There is documentation showing that Knieling wrote to the employee in question, who is not named in the report, in October 2023.
“Unfortunately, my confidence and trust in you has been severely compromised,” Knieling wrote. “I invite you to provide other insights or information that you think I am missing in my assessment of this situation. Absent some reasonable explanation, I struggle to see a successful path forward for you in the (state’s human resource office).”
Related: Oregon’s top human resources official fired; says she tried to hold state leaders accountable
The report goes back and forth over whether Knieling proactively called this employee’s future employers at the Oregon Youth Authority or if officials there called Knieling seeking a reference. The report also states that by one account, Knieling was “aggressively advocating” for this employee’s removal from a temporary job at the youth authority. Either way, Knieling did not offer a positive review of the employee and the employee did not get the job.
The investigator notes that state law allows a former employee’s job performance to be given to a prospective employer “upon the request” of the employer. Mason, the investigator, substantiated this complaint, saying she believed Knieling proactively reached out.
Finally, the third complaint alleges Knieling inappropriately denied an employee’s Americans with Disabilities Act accommodation request. The state employee in question lives in Idaho and was having a difficult time attending in-person monthly meetings and quarterly all-staff meetings.
The investigator also found that complaint to be substantiated noting, “(nobody) considered modifying Ms. Knieling’s in-office policies as a form of reasonable accommodation, even though technology was available to support remote attendance.”
Other complaints against Knieling and her deputy, Kyle Weraky, who resigned, were unfounded, including using certain derogatory language against employees.
“I observed multiple instances of Mr. Weraky ranting and speaking unkindly about employees,” Mason wrote. “But I did not observe Mr. Weraky use language like “crazy”, “hysterical”, “incompetent”, “trash”, “arrogant”, or “slow in the head” to describe any employees.”
Mason interviewed more than two dozen people for the report and reviewed internal emails and documents. The report was 69 pages.
