WINDHAM – The Windham police officer who won a harassment claim against the town this spring from the Maine Human Rights Commission is now taking her case to the federal level, the U.S. District Court in Portland.

Danielle Nelson, formerly Danielle Cyr, is charging a fellow officer, who was later fired due to his conduct, with sexual harassment, and implicates other department employees and town officials with condoning and perpetuating the harassment.

The suit also alleges members of the department retaliated against Nelson and shunned her after she complained, which she claims caused her emotional stress and put her life at risk on emergency calls.

Nelson, who joined the department in 2006 and works in patrol, is represented by Rebecca Webber, of the Auburn-based law firm, Linnell, Choate & Webber. Webber, who filed the federal suit July 26, was unavailable for comment this week.

The town of Windham is represented by John Wall of Portland-based Monaghan Leahy. Wall, who was assigned the case on Monday, was limited in his comment, saying he would argue the case in court, not in the media.

“Now that the matter is in suit, the town intends to defend the allegations in that forum,” Wall said.

Nelson’s 26-page complaint paints a disturbing picture of the department. Despite her repeated pleas for help and reassignment, Nelson alleges superiors did little to stop sexual harassment and fostered a sexually charged atmosphere, including adult magazines in the bathroom, sexually inappropriate movies in the workplace, and sexual talk and behavior.

Nelson says she complained multiple times about sexual harassment from another patrol officer, identified as Officer Mark Dougan, but that her requests for help fell on deaf ears from superiors, including Windham’s top two police officials, Police Chief Rick Lewsen and Lt. David DeGruchy, as well as several sergeants.

When asked about Nelson’s charges, which go into graphic detail in the complaint, Wall said, “All I can say at this point is that the town believes it responded appropriately to circumstances involving Ms. Nelson that were brought to its attention. Beyond that, I am sure that fair-minded individuals will not reach any conclusions about this matter until the litigation runs its course.”

Much of the complaint duplicates the case presented to the Maine Human Rights Commission, which found in favor of Nelson in March. The federal court claim charges the town of Windham with malice and reckless indifference to Nelson’s civil rights, and seeks monetary compensation. The commission’s findings didn’t impose any monetary damages against the town.

While Dougan is the only Windham employee charged with direct sexual harassment, the complaint targets the upper echelon of the police department and town hall.

“The town and its manager and HR director have supported the actions of the police department, giving their imprimatur to the gender-biased policies and departmental operations employed by the Windham Police Department,” Webber wrote in the conclusion to the 26-page complaint. “The town’s actions and inaction, and the conduct of its town manager and police chief and HR director, amounted to deliberate, callous and reckless indifference to the constitutional rights of others and an affirmative link exists between that inaction and conduct and the constitutional violations alleged in this complaint.”

Nelson is requesting lost wages, compensatory and punitive damages, civil penal damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses and “such further relief as deemed appropriate” by the court.

The town fired Dougan in October 2009, but the suit contends repeated protests by Nelson should have resulted in a much earlier firing.

“The town knew or should have known it needed to take action about Dougan as early as March 2009, seven months before it finally did take action in October 2009,” Webber wrote in the complaint.

While Dougan targeted Nelson repeatedly, according to the suit, and put her life in danger on police calls, other women also complained about his behavior. One dispatcher even quit, the suit contends, on account of Dougan.

After Dougan was fired in 2009, the suit contends Nelson started experiencing retaliation from other officers and superiors. The suit claims she was removed from social media contacts and shunned at public events and in the police station.

“At a time she was struggling from the [post-traumatic stress disorder] of dealing with Dougan, this retaliatory conduct set her back,” Webber wrote in the complaint.

The shunning continued after Nelson was placed on paid leave in January 2010 due to depression and an ankle injury. Nelson went into the police station in summer 2011 to get some information on an accident her mother was involved in, and “as soon as she walked in, all of the officers there walked out,” the suit contends.

Nelson, who wanted to return to work, according to the suit, sought the legal counsel of Webber, who wrote to the town in January 2012 seeking ways to “ease Nelson back into work and asking what, if anything, had been done by the town to stop the shunning. The town responded that it had taken no action,” the suit claims.

While several superiors are identified by name for ignoring Nelson’s repeated requests for help, the department’s longtime police chief, Rick Lewsen, is castigated as well for his inactive role throughout. The suit contends Lewsen talked with Dougan, who had requested a letter in March 2012 from Lewsen clearing him of harassment charges, and told him they were “both in the same —- pile” and that he wouldn’t write the letter since it could be construed as further retaliation against Nelson.

“Never did the Chief say, Dougan, you were fired for harassing not just Danielle but other women too,” the suit contends, “Far from making clear that firing Dougan was the right step, the Chief instead made clear he was in the same boat as Dougan and then apologized for ‘giving him some bad advice.’”

The suit also claims the town made returning to work difficult for Nelson, delaying issuance of a bullet-proof vest and uniform and requiring additional shooting tests.

Since the case has recently been filed, it could be months before a trial could take place.