Systemic Failures at NYPD Cited in New Filing Detailing Pattern of Supervisory Abuse and Institutional Indifference

New York, NY – June 27, 2025 — In a stunning and deeply disturbing development, NYPD Detective Shatorra Foster has filed a Verified Answer With Counterclaims against Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant Trevlyn Headley and the City of New York, detailing a prolonged campaign of unwanted sexual conduct, psychological coercion, and professional retaliation committed by a supervisory officer within the NYPD. The claims span violations of the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), and the Gender-Motivated Violence Act (GMVA), and paint a harrowing picture of power-based abuse sustained and sanctioned within the department.

The allegations—spanning from September 2023 through November 2024—include graphic and detailed accounts of repeated nonconsensual oral sex, coercive sexual remarks, retaliatory threats, and a particularly egregious March 14, 2024 incident in which Headley, on duty and in uniform, allegedly forced oral sex upon Foster inside a dormitory at NYPD Headquarters.

The counterclaims allege a sustained course of coercive and nonconsensual sexual conduct—including the March 14, 2024, dormitory assault—that collectively qualifies as criminal sexual acts under New York Penal Law §§ 130.05 and 130.50. This pattern of abuse forms the basis for a gender-motivated violence claim under the New York City Gender-Motivated Violence Act (GMVA).

According to the filing:

“The oral sex committed on March 14, 2024, while Foster was isolated in a secured dormitory, was committed without consent, through abuse of authority and psychological coercion, and qualifies as criminal sexual conduct… These actions meet the definition of a gender-motivated act of violence under the GMVA.”

A Broader Pattern of Sexual Misconduct and Institutional Indifference Within the NYPD

The allegations set forth by Foster are not isolated. Rather, they reflect a longstanding and deeply entrenched pattern of sexual harassment, coercion, and institutional neglect within the New York City Police Department. Over the past decade, multiple female officers and employees have come forward with credible claims of sexual misconduct by supervisory personnel—claims that, disturbingly, mirror the power abuses, psychological coercion, and retaliatory cover-ups alleged here.

In the instant matter, Foster alleges not only a sustained course of coerced sexual conduct by Headley, but also that the misconduct was part of a broader, well-known pattern. The counterclaims further allege that Headley has a long-documented history of sexually inappropriate, coercive, and retaliatory conduct toward other female officers, both within and outside the workplace. Despite this, the NYPD’s Office of Equity and Inclusion and Internal Affairs Bureau failed to take corrective or preventive action, thereby demonstrating, as the pleading characterizes, deliberate indifference or reckless disregard for the rights and safety of subordinate officers.

“Upon information and belief, supervisory personnel and internal oversight bodies within the NYPD—including the Office of Equity and Inclusion and Internal Affairs Bureau—were aware, or should have been aware, of Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant TREVLYN HEADLEY’s longstanding pattern of sexually inappropriate, coercive, and retaliatory conduct toward other female officers, both within and outside the workplace,” the Verified Answer and Counterclaims state.

While Foster is the first to publicize claims against Headley formally, the suit alludes to a known internal pattern of abuse. According to the pleading, internal whispers and informal complaints suggest Headley has exhibited a pattern of predatory behavior targeting younger female subordinates, often concealed beneath a performative façade of mentorship or professional concern. The suit alleges that Headley exploited her rank, the chain-of-command hierarchy, and the NYPD’s protected culture of silence to identify, manipulate, and dominate vulnerable female officers. Her conduct, the filing contends, was further enabled by the Department’s failure to intervene, investigate, or discipline her, even after being placed on notice of her misconduct.

Foster’s allegations are consistent with a growing number of publicized cases in which women within the NYPD have reported similar patterns of sexual harassment and institutional betrayal. For example, in Captain Gabrielle Walls v. City of New York, the plaintiff alleged pervasive harassment and retaliation after disclosing misconduct by senior officials. Shemalisca Vasquez, Ann Cardenas, and Angelique Olaechea all raised comparable claims—each involving unwanted sexual advances, systemic minimization of complaints, and retaliatory transfers or disciplinary threats. In perhaps the most high-profile case to date, Retired Lieutenant Quathisha Epps filed a December 2024 EEOC charge alleging quid pro quo harassment by former NYPD Chief of Department Jeffrey B. Maddrey. Following her disclosures, Epps was subjected to fabricated charges, unauthorized surveillance, and other related actions, including the revocation of her law enforcement certification and the unauthorized clawback of lawfully earned overtime monies.

Taken together, these cases reveal an institutional culture within the NYPD that protects harassers, punishes survivors, and fosters impunity at the highest levels of command. Despite years of litigation, public audits, and internal reviews—including the Equal Employment Practices Commission’s 2020 report highlighting systemic deficiencies in NYPD’s EEO response mechanisms—meaningful structural reform remains elusive.

In this context, Foster’s counterclaims are not merely personal; they are also substantive. They are emblematic of a broader culture of unaccountability within the Department, where power is routinely abused, sexual misconduct is normalized, and internal systems are weaponized against those who speak out. Her legal action seeks not only individual redress but a long-overdue reckoning with the institutional forces that allowed Headley’s conduct to flourish.

Retaliation After Withdrawal

The counterclaims further detail a campaign of retaliation following Foster’s attempts to withdraw from the unwanted relationship. Headley allegedly orchestrated false disciplinary charges against Foster, resulting in public humiliation, professional damage, and emotional trauma. The City of New York is named as a defendant based on claims that it failed to investigate or intervene, and instead ratified the retaliation by sustaining the fabricated charges.

Legal Claims and Relief Sought

Foster seeks redress under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) for sexual harassment, the creation of a hostile work environment, and unlawful retaliation. Her Verified Answer and Counterclaims detail a sustained course of coercive, degrading, and nonconsensual sexual conduct initiated by her supervisor, Headley, between October 2023 and June 2024. The alleged conduct includes repeated instances of unwanted oral sex, coercive threats, possessive and sexually explicit language, and the abuse of supervisory power to control and isolate Foster.

Foster alleges that this pattern of abuse culminated in a violent sexual assault on March 14, 2024, inside a secured NYPD dormitory at One Police Plaza while Headley was on duty and in uniform. This incident, among others, constitutes a criminal sexual act under New York Penal Law §§ 130.05 and 130.50 and part of the pattern of behavior constituting the basis of a gender-motivated violence claim under the New York City Gender-Motivated Violence Act (GMVA). Foster further alleges that after withdrawing from the coerced sexual relationship, she was subjected to retaliatory acts, including formal disciplinary charges that the City of New York knowingly pursued in disregard of the documented misconduct by Headley.

Accordingly, Foster seeks compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs, and all other relief the Court deems proper. Her claims demand accountability not only from Headley as an individual wrongdoer, but also from the City of New York for its institutional complicity and ratification of the unlawful conduct.

Statement from Counsel

Eric Sanders, Esq., of ¸ŁŔűĽ§., who represents Foster, stated:

“This case is not just about one supervisor’s abusive conduct. It’s about an entire system that fails to protect the most vulnerable within its ranks. No one should endure sexual coercion or retaliation under the badge of public service. The NYPD and the City of New York must be held accountable not just for what they did—but what they failed to stop.”

´ˇ˛ú´ÇłÜłŮĚý¸ŁŔűĽ§.

Fighting for Justice and Reform to Promote Equal Opportunity

Led by Eric Sanders, Esq.,Ěý¸ŁŔűĽ§.Ěýhas a proven track record in civil rights litigation, representing clients in complex cases involving law enforcement misconduct and employment discrimination. Mr. Sanders, a former police officer, leverages deep insight into systemic issues facing law enforcement agencies. The firm has successfully recovered millions in damages and remains committed to promoting fairness, integrity, and meaningful reform within public institutions.

Contact:ĚýEric Sanders, Esq.
President and Owner,Ěý¸ŁŔűĽ§.
30 Wall Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Phone:Ěý(212) 652-2782

###

Read the Verified Answer With CounterclaimsĚý

The post “You and I Don’t Have a Relationship—Your P***y and I Do”: Explosive Sexual Misconduct Allegations Rock NYPD first appeared on ¸ŁŔűĽ§..

New York, NY — Saturday, May 3, 2025 – In a formal response filed May 2, 2025, ¸ŁŔűĽ§., asserts that the New York City Police Department’s demand that former Lieutenant Quathisha Epps repay $231,896.75 in overtime wages is not only baseless—it is retaliatory, discriminatory, and illegal. According to the firm, this clawback demand followed closely on the heels of Epps’s disclosures of rape, sexual coercion, wage fraud, and executive misconduct involving former Chief of Department Jeffrey B. Maddrey and other NYPD senior officials.

“This is not a payroll issue,” said Eric Sanders, Esq., counsel for Ms. Epps. “This is a targeted attack on a Black woman who dared to report sexual abuse by the most powerful uniformed officer in the Department. What the NYPD is doing now is retaliation—plain and simple.”

Protected Disclosures, Retaliatory Suspension, and Public Smear

On December 18, 2024, Epps was suspended without cause. The suspension occurred immediately after she alleged that Maddrey sexually assaulted her inside NYPD Headquarters. The suspension, carried out by former Chief of Internal Affairs Miguel Iglesias, was not accompanied by any investigation into the criminal allegations. Despite her protected disclosures, Police Commissioner Jessica S. Tisch, empowered by the New York City Charter and Administrative Code § 14-115, took no action to investigate or protect her.

Between FY July 2023 and October 2024, Epps internally reported a pattern of high-level misconduct: rape, sodomy, quid pro quo harassment, wage coercion, destruction of evidence, and the abuse of departmental databases to target women. Rather than respond appropriately, the NYPD leaked manipulated overtime records to the New York Post, framing Epps as a financial opportunist.

“The overtime issue is a red herring—manufactured to distract from the real legal and moral crisis inside the NYPD. Under New York labor law, the employer must maintain accurate records, not the employee. The law is clear: administrative gaps or missing slips—especially in a system the Department itself admits is flawed—do not constitute fraud. This is not a wage dispute. It’s a retaliation case cloaked in payroll rhetoric, and the legal precedent overwhelmingly supports Ms. Epps,” says Sanders.

As the retaliation escalated, Epps was forced into retirement in bad standing. Meanwhile, those implicated—including First Deputy Commissioner Tania I. Kinsella, former Deputy Commissioner Kaz Daughtry, former Chief of Patrol John Chell, Maddrey, and Iglesias—escaped accountability.

A Legacy of Retaliation Against Black Women Who Report Abuse

Epps’s case is not an anomaly—it is a modern reenactment of a centuries-old pattern in which Black women who report sexual violence are met with disbelief, discrediting, and institutional punishment.

From slavery through Jim Crow to the modern NYPD, the legal system has consistently failed to see Black women as credible victims. The Department’s decision to pursue Epps for repayment—despite no audit, no disciplinary finding, and no evidence of wrongdoing—mirrors this legacy. Had she remained silent, no clawback would have occurred.

Her experience echoes that of Recy Taylor, the Black woman abducted and gang-raped by six white men in 1944, in Alabama. Despite a confession, no charges were brought. The case, investigated by Rosa Parks, became a national symbol of institutional complicity. So too now, Epps faces bureaucratic punishment instead of protection.

Today, silencing Black women takes more insidious forms: retaliatory transfers, unjust disciplinary actions, and character attacks. According to the Center for Employment Equity, 68% of sexual harassment charges include retaliation. Though Black women make up only 7% of the U.S. workforce, they filed 27% of all harassment complaints between 2012 and 2016. Their complaints are the least likely to succeed and the most likely to be punished.

Institutional Retaliation Disguised as Investigation

The NYPD’s campaign against Epps did not begin with a neutral audit—it started with a retaliatory media leak. Before any formal review occurred, confidential overtime records were selectively released to discredit her following disclosures of sexual assault, quid pro quo harassment, and wage coercion involving Maddrey. What followed was not a search for accountability, but a calculated retribution strategy: Epps was recast from victim to suspect. Investigatory bodies, including the Internal Affairs Bureau and Quality Assurance Division, operating under Tisch, launched internal probes anchored on “missing” records that Epps never controlled—records allegedly requested and processed under Maddrey’s authority. These inquiries, initiated only after Epps filed her EEOC Charge and cooperated with federal authorities, reflect a structural weaponization of process, not an impartial pursuit of truth. NYPD leadership allegedly used investigatory channels to preserve institutional reputation and suppress exposure, while ignoring well-established trauma science confirming that delayed reporting, memory inconsistencies, and emotional dysregulation are common and expected responses to sexual violence. Instead, Epps’s trauma responses were twisted into grounds for suspicion. These retaliatory investigations—mirroring prosecutorial misconduct seen in broader law enforcement culture—ignored testimonial credibility, destroyed physical and digital evidence, and relied on procedural pretexts to justify reputational harm and financial clawback. Under New York law, such investigations, when launched in response to protected activity, are not only suspect—they are unlawful. In this case, the Department’s internal machinery was not used to investigate misconduct—it was used to silence a woman who dared to report it.

Destruction of Evidence and Alleged Institutional Spoliation

According to the response, the NYPD’s handling of physical and digital evidence related to Epps’s sexual assault allegations constitutes not mere administrative negligence, but deliberate, unlawful spoliation. After Epps filed an EEOC Charge and began cooperating with federal and local law enforcement, the Department allegedly removed and destroyed critical evidence from the location where she reported being assaulted by Maddrey. This included her department-issued iPad, desktop computer, mobile phone, and an external drive containing confidential materials, such as “contracts” and “grids,” allegedly processed at Maddrey’s direction and inconsistent with NYPD policy. Also destroyed were personal documents, notebooks, red diaries, and the physical workspace itself—flooring, furnishings, wall treatments—erasing the crime scene.

Despite the direct evidentiary relevance of these materials and clear legal obligations under New York law and NYPD policy to preserve them, no imaging, sequestration, or preservation steps were taken. The response asserts this conduct constitutes willful spoliation and that Epps will seek an adverse inference at trial, monetary sanctions, and suppression findings under CPLR § 3126. Supporting precedent includes Pegasus Aviation I, Inc. v. Varig Logistica S.A., 26 N.Y.3d 543 (2015), and VOOM HD Holdings LLC v. EchoStar Satellite L.L.C., 93 A.D.3d 33 (1st Dep’t 2012), both of which affirm that a duty to preserve evidence attaches when litigation is reasonably anticipated—even before it is formally filed.

More broadly, the Department’s actions reflect a pattern of obstruction, not investigation. Under any reasonable probable cause analysis, these allegations should have triggered an immediate arrest and criminal referral. Instead, the Department allegedly moved to eliminate evidence, silence the complainant, and protect executive staff. What occurred, the response concludes, was not a lapse—it was an institutional cover-up carried out at public expense and in direct violation of Ms. Epps’s civil and legal rights.

Contradictory Public Testimony and Selective Enforcement Reveal Retaliatory Motive

The NYPD’s clawback demand against Epps directly conflicts with its sworn public statements and long-standing internal practices, revealing what the response calls a “strategic act of institutional retaliation cloaked in fiscal oversight.” On March 20, 2024, during a City Council budget hearing, Kinsella testified under oath that the NYPD had implemented rigorous biweekly oversight measures to monitor and control overtime expenditures. Seated beside her were then–Police Commissioner Edward A. Caban, Deputy Commissioner of Legal Matters Michael Gerber, Maddrey, Chell, and other senior command staff. None of them challenged her testimony. None disclosed that these supposed controls were inconsistently enforced or entirely abandoned.

Yet from July 2023 through October 2024—the same period Kinsella referenced—Ms. Epps’s overtime was logged, approved, and paid without objection through standard NYPD procedures. She was among hundreds of uniformed officers with comparable or higher overtime earnings. No internal inquiry was initiated. No irregularities flagged. No UF-49s issued. The scrutiny only began after she engaged in protected activity: rejecting Maddrey’s coercive advances, reporting sexual and financial misconduct internally, filing an EEOC charge, and cooperating with outside investigators. The Department’s clawback narrative—unsupported by audit findings or contemporaneous documentation—emerged only after Epps named her abuser.

This is not fiscal discipline. It is a retaliatory pretext.

The statistical context further underscores the disparity. Between Fiscal Years 2013 and 2022, New York City’s overtime costs surged by $760 million, from $1.46 billion to $2.22 billion. The NYPD accounted for the largest share. In FY 2022 alone, the department overspent its uniformed overtime budget by 93%, and by FY 2023, the City Comptroller projected NYPD overtime costs would exceed $740 million—nearly double the $374 million allocated. Assuming even a conservative estimate of 400 top overtime earners annually translates to thousands of high-compensation officers over the past decade. Yet there is no record of a single clawback—until Ms. Epps. Her selection is not coincidental. It is retaliatory.

The legal foundation for the demand is equally infirm. Under 12 NYCRR § 142-2.6, employers—including the NYPD—bear the nondelegable duty to maintain accurate payroll records for at least six years. Yet the Department has failed to produce any audit, disciplinary finding, or sworn payroll declaration to justify its $231,896.75 claim. Instead, it references “missing” or “replaced” overtime slips—records known to be inconsistently maintained and frequently corrected across commands. On July 26, 2024, a Departmental Trial involving Lieutenant Joel Ramirez and Sergeant Jose Dume, longtime payroll supervisor Kenya Coger, testified that such discrepancies were routine and corrected retroactively, without adverse consequences.

Ms. Epps’s timekeeping occurred under the same norms. At Maddrey’s direction, she and others in the Chief of Department’s Office were instructed not to use the CityTime system. Overtime was logged manually and submitted through channels that had never before triggered audit scrutiny. That this routine, manager-approved system is now retroactively criminalized—only after Epps disclosed sexual assault and wage coercion—exposes the demand as retaliatory enforcement, not neutral policy.

This weaponized clawback violates well-established labor law. As the Appellate Division held in Matter of Mid Hudson Pam Corp. v. Hartnett, 156 A.D.2d 818 (3d Dep’t 1989), employers who fail to maintain payroll records cannot shift the burden to employees. Courts may rely on testimony and reconstructed evidence in the face of incomplete records, resolving any inaccuracy against the employer who caused it.

The NYPD’s silence toward thousands of similar earners, juxtaposed with its pursuit of Epps, speaks volumes. This is not an attempt to safeguard taxpayer funds. It is an attempt to discredit a Black woman who named her abuser. The demand must be withdrawn as a matter of law, equity, and institutional accountability.

Conclusion and Call to Action

The Department’s clawback demand lacks legal foundation and moral standing. It is a targeted effort to punish a whistleblower for exposing institutional misconduct. It reflects selective enforcement, systemic payroll dysfunction, and entrenched gender and racial bias.

The City of New York and Commissioner Tisch now face a clear choice: protect the power structure or the truth. If the retaliatory demand is not withdrawn and Ms. Epps’s employment record is not corrected, ¸ŁŔűĽ§. will initiate litigation. Relief will include compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, spoliation sanctions, and full attorney’s fees under the New York Human Rights Laws, the Gender-Motivated Violence Act, and other applicable law.

“I will not be silenced. This isn’t just my fight—it’s the fight of every woman who dared to speak up and was punished for it,” said Quathisha Epps. “If the Department—or anyone else—believes they can erase what happened by attacking me, they’ve gravely underestimated the power of truth.”

###

See NYPD Overpayment Demand

See NYPD Overpayment ResponseĚý

See DCT Trial Transcript – Ramirez Partial Day 2

See Matter of Mid Hudson Pam Corp v Hartnett

The post NYPD Retaliation Exposed: Former Lieutenant Quathisha Epps Threatens Legal Action Over $231,896 Wage Clawback Tied to Sexual Assault Whistleblower Retaliation first appeared on ¸ŁŔűĽ§..

Lieutenant Joel Ramirez’s lawsuit claims senior officials shielded white officers involved in misconduct while punishing him for exposing corruption, exacerbating distrust within the department and among the public.

New York, NY – April 29, 2025 – Lieutenant Joel Ramirez, a 19-year veteran of the New York City Police Department (NYPD), has filed a lawsuit in New York State Supreme Court alleging that the NYPD retaliated against him for whistleblowing and subjected him to a double standard in discipline. The suit claims that Ramirez was unfairly demoted and subjected to termination and disciplinary probation after he exposed an internal cover-up of officer misconduct. In contrast, other officers – predominantly white or politically connected – received lenient treatment for far more serious offenses. The 77-page Verified Complaint details a pattern of discrimination, retaliation, and favoritism within the NYPD’s disciplinary system, echoing longstanding concerns raised by the independent panel’s 2019 report on the NYPD, “The Report of the Independent Panel on the Disciplinary System of the New York City Police Department.”

Background: Whistleblower Alleges Cover-Up and Retaliation

According to the complaint, Ramirez served as a supervisor at the 2022 Electric Zoo music festival, overseeing narcotics enforcement and the handling of prisoner transports. During the event, several detectives were caught on video stealing expensive bottles of champagne and consuming alcohol while on duty – serious misconduct that Ramirez says he reported immediately to his superiors. Instead of disciplining the offending detectives, high-ranking officers allegedly orchestrated a cover-up. The complaint asserts that a group of commanders (including the Chief of Detectives Joseph E. Kenny, Deputy Chief Brian S. McGee, Inspector Peter A. Fiorillo, Deputy Inspecotr Christopher Henning, Deputy Inspector Daniel J. Campbell and Internal Affairs Bureau executives including former Chief of Internal Affairs David P. Barrere) intervened to shield the detectives – instructing them to change out of their uniforms and leave the scene – and then scapegoated Ramirez for “failure to supervise.”

Ramirez claims that after he objected to this cover-up and pushed for accountability, NYPD leadership retaliated with a barrage of unjust actions. He was stripped of his command, subjected to internal charges, and ultimately recommended for termination, despite the lack of any evidence to suggest that he had engaged in wrongdoing. Internal records show that the detectives who were involved in theft and alcohol misuse were largely protected by their superiors. In contrast, Ramirez – a Hispanic officer with an exemplary service record – was targeted for harsh punishment. The lawsuit alleges retaliation for whistleblowing and an act of racial and ethnic discrimination, given that the officers shielded from discipline were white and had influential connections within the NYPD’s ranks.

Ramirez’s ordeal culminated in a departmental trial on the “failure to supervise” charge, which he contends was a sham proceeding riddled with bias. The complaint alleges that NYPD officials ignored key exculpatory evidence, relied on speculative assertions instead of facts, and held him to an unreasonable standard that had never been applied to similarly situated supervisors. Despite multiple witnesses corroborating Ramirez’s proper conduct and the absence of any subordinate misconduct that he could have prevented, the trial outcome was pre-determined. In October 2024, then-Commissioner Thomas G. Donlon approved a recommendation to fire Ramirez (technically a dismissal held in abeyance for one year), effectively ending his NYPD career.

By contrast, the detectives who committed the misconduct at Electric Zoo faced minimal repercussions. The complaint notes that none of those officers were terminated; some received minor command disciplines or short suspensions at most, despite clear evidence they stole property and violated multiple department rules. “It was a complete inversion of justice,” the complaint states, alleging that NYPD leadership chose to silence the whistleblower and protect the wrongdoers. Ramirez’s suit contends that this outcome was driven by favoritism and a desire to avoid scandal, given that the involved detectives were members of the NYPD’s Gaelic Football Club – an organization with influential supporters within the department.

Favoritism and Inconsistent Discipline: Findings Mirror 2019 NYPD Panel Report

Ramirez’s allegations come against the backdrop of broader criticisms of NYPD’s disciplinary system. A high-profile 2019 Independent Panel Report on NYPD discipline, commissioned by then-Commissioner James O’Neill, warned ofĚýopaque processes, arbitrary standards, political favoritism, and systemic inconsistencies in the discipline of officers. The panel of legal experts found that officers with connections or clout often received lighter penalties, while others faced harsher outcomes for similar or lesser misconduct. In particular, the panel highlighted how political influence and personal relationships could sway disciplinary decisions: well-connected officers frequently saw their cases “quietly dismissed or faced minimal consequences,” whereas those without patronage – or those who had fallen out of favor – were subjected to severe penalties without clear justification. This double standard, the report concluded, compromised the integrity of the entire disciplinary system and raised serious concerns about transparency and fairness.

The complaint asserts that Ramirez is a textbook example of the very problems identified by the 2019 panel. It alleges that NYPD officials applied inconsistent and biased discipline: protecting favored officers while punishing Ramirez disproportionally, despite his lack of misconduct. Indeed, former Commissioner Donlon’s decision to terminate Ramirez is contrasted with multiple recent cases in which officers who committed egregious offenses retained their jobs. The complaint explicitly cites the independent panel’s findings, noting that even the perception of favoritism or bias can undermine confidence in the disciplinary system. In Ramirez’s case, that perception was reinforced by outcomes that defied logic or merit – a scenario the panel cautioned could happen in a system with little transparency and virtually unchecked discretion for top officials.

Notably, the NYPD’s disciplinary process has historically lacked public transparency due to New York’s now-repealed Civil Rights Law §50-a, which shielded police misconduct records from disclosure. The 2019 panel found that this “fundamental and pervasive lack of transparency” bred mistrust and impeded accountability. Ramirez’s experience, his lawsuit alleges, exemplifies how secretive disciplinary proceedings allow favoritism to flourish. Key decisions in his case were made behind closed doors, with no explanation provided for deviating from standard procedures. The Commissioner provided no detailed rationale for why Ramirez was singled out, creating an appearance of arbitrariness that “undermines the confidence of the public and other constituencies in the integrity and fairness of the NYPD’s disciplinary system.”

Comparator Cases Highlight Disparate Treatment

In support of his claims, Ramirez’s complaint sets forth numerous comparative cases of NYPD officers who engaged in serious misconduct but received leniency, in stark contrast to the harsh outcome he endured. These examples, spanning recent years, illustrate an alleged pattern of discipline by double standards:

• : Accused of multiple sexual encounters with a crime witness and making false statements, Thompson’s misconduct led an NYPD Trials Commissioner to recommend termination. Instead, in October 2023, Commissioner Caban overruled that recommendation and imposed only the loss of 30 vacation days and one year of dismissal probation. The complaint alleges that this decision was driven by Thompson’sĚýpolitical connections, which constitutesĚýimproper influence on the process.

• : Arrested for Arson (intentionally setting a fire causing property damage) and criminal mischief, Sorocco did not lose her job. She forfeited 30 days’ pay, served one year of probation, and then returned to full duty without demotion under Commissioner James O’Neill. Despite the felony-level nature of her offense, she was given an opportunity for rehabilitation that Ramirez was denied.

• : Caught submitting fraudulent COVID-19 vaccination cards and lying during an official investigation, Lucas faced charges of dishonesty. An NYPD deputy commissioner recommended termination; yet, on May 10, 2024, Commissioner Caban rejected that and levied only an 85-day vacation day loss and a one-year probation. He cited her prior good performance as justification, a tolerance not afforded to Ramirez despite his exemplary record.

• : Found guilty in two separate incidents of domestic violence and reckless endangerment against his wife, including one incident causing her serious spinal injuries, an NYPD Trials Commissioner urged that Rathour be fired for his “blatant disregard” for safety. Nevertheless, Commissioner Caban again deviated from that recommendation and imposed lesser, undisclosed penalties, which the complaint links to Rathour’s affiliations with influential NYPD figures. Rathour remained on the force, whereas Ramirez was recommended for termination for a far less egregious situation.

• : In a highly publicized case, Joseph Essig – the son of NYPD Chief of Detectives James Essig – was arrested in 2015 for felony sexual misconduct. He ultimately pleaded guilty to a minor violation and paid a fine. Rather than being disqualified from service, Essig was allowed to continue his NYPD career under Commissioner William Bratton, even securing an assignment to the elite Gun Violence Suppression Division. Ramirez notes that he was recommended for termination despite neverĚýhaving been convicted of any crime, while Essig kept his position after a serious arrest for a crime.

These and other cases outlined in the complaint (involving offenses ranging from DUI and child endangerment to associating with criminals and filing false reports) and indeed others unknown to Ramirez at the time, all paint a consistent picture. Officers with political clout or favored status were shielded from termination despite well-founded misconduct charges, whereas Ramirez, who lacked such connections, received the NYPD’s harshest penalty. The lawsuit alleges that this disparity is not coincidental but symptomatic of a deeply flawed system. “The NYPD’s disparate disciplinary practices demonstrate that conduct involving public intoxication, domestic violence, endangering children, obstruction of investigations, and even felony-level misconduct were not deemed fireable offenses when politically connected individuals were involved,” says Eric Sanders. In contrast, Ramirez was recommended for termination “under materially different circumstancesĚýthat had little to do with merit and everything to do with retaliation and discrimination,” say Sanders.

Systemic Impact: Eroding Trust and Public Safety

Ramirez’s case raises alarms about the broader consequences of the NYPD’s alleged retaliation against whistleblowers and uneven discipline. Policing experts have long warned that a “blue wall of silence” – where officers fear reporting misconduct – can fester when whistleblowers are punished instead of rewarded. This practice deters honest cops from coming forward, enabling wrongdoing to continue unchecked. It also undermines internal accountability mechanisms, since crucial information about misconduct may never surface if officers believe speaking up will lead to retaliation.

Such a culture has dire implications for public trust and safety. When misconduct is swept under the rug and whistleblowers are ostracized, the community’s confidence in law enforcement erodes. As the 2019 independent panel noted, even the appearance of bias or favoritism in discipline “undermines the legitimacy of the disciplinary process” in the eyes of both officers and the public. Communities rely on police departments to police themselves with fairness and transparency; if, instead, the NYPD is perceived to protect insiders and punish truth-tellers, citizens may doubt whether bad officers are ever held accountable. This erosion of trust can lead to the public being less cooperative with police investigations and less likely to report crimes, ultimately harming public safety. It also demoralizes the rank-and-file officers who abide by the rules, only to see others get special treatment.

“Retaliating against a whistleblower like Lieutenant Ramirez doesn’t just violate his rights – it’s dangerous for the department and the city. It sends the worst possible signal to other officers: that integrity is unwelcome. By punishing those who speak up and rewarding those who break the rules, the NYPD fosters a culture of fear and silence. This culture not only shatters the careers of good officers, but it also deprives New Yorkers of a police department that consistently enforces standards of honesty and professionalism. In the end, it erodes public trust, and without trust, effective policing becomes impossible,”Ěýsays Sanders.

The lawsuit alleges that these issues are not just individual grievances but systemic failures. It points out that NYPD officials had opportunities to intervene in Ramirez’s case and prevent a miscarriage of justice, yet at every level, the leadership ratified the retaliatory actions. Former Commissioners Keechant L. Sewell, Edward A. Caban, and Donlon – all named as defendants – allegedly either knew or should have known about the biased handling of the Electric Zoo incident but took no action to stop it. By “rubberstamping” a flawed and disproportionate penalty against a whistleblower, the suit argues, NYPD’s top brass demonstrated a tolerance for favoritism and retribution that saps morale within the force and damages the NYPD’s reputation in the community. This has prompted calls for stronger external oversight of NYPD discipline and better legal protections for officers who come forward with information about misconduct.

Lawsuit and Relief Sought

Ramirez’s Verified Complaint, filed April 29, 2025, asserts causes of action under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws, including claims of racial/national origin discrimination and unlawful retaliation. It seeks reinstatement to his position, back pay and benefits, and compensatory and punitive damages for the harm to his career and reputation.

This case arrives at a time of heightened scrutiny of NYPD’s disciplinary practices. In recent years, the Department has publicly committed to improving transparency and consistency, for example, by publishing a disciplinary penalty guidelines matrix to “eliminate the perception of favoritism or bias” in punishment. Ramirez’s experience, however, suggests that entrenched cultural problems remain. His lawsuit will shed light on whether NYPD leadership has truly broken from past patterns of favoritism, political interference, and retaliation, or whether more profound change is still needed to ensure that all officers are held accountable under the same fair standards.

Contact:

Eric Sanders, Esq.
¸ŁŔűĽ§.
30 Wall Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Phone: (212) 652-2782

###

Read the Verified Complaint

Read the 2019 Independent Panel Report – NYPD Disciplinary System

The post Whistleblower Lieutenant Sues NYPD, Alleging a Culture of Favoritism, Retaliation, and Racial Bias Following Electric Zoo Theft Cover-Up first appeared on ¸ŁŔűĽ§..

NEW YORK, NY – April 27, 2025 – Civil Rights Attorney Eric Sanders, Esq., of ¸ŁŔűĽ§., announced today that former NYPD Police Officer Jermack Romero has filed a Verified Complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, against the City of New York, former Police Commissioners Edward A. Caban and Keechant L. Sewell, and former Deputy Commissioner Amy J. Litwin. The lawsuit alleges pervasive gender-based discrimination, unlawful reliance on a sealed arrest record, retaliation for asserting protected rights, and systemic favoritism based on political affiliations within the New York City Police Department’s disciplinary process.

The case, Romero v. The City of New York, et al., centers on Romero’s termination from the NYPD after a seventeen-year career marked by exemplary service. The Verified Complaint outlines in exhaustive detail how Romero was subjected to harsher disciplinary actions than similarly situated officers, in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).

“This case highlights the NYPD’s persistent failure to uphold the principles of fairness and equal treatment in its disciplinary processes,” said Attorney Eric Sanders. “Instead of recognizing Mr. Romero’s rights, the Department reinforced gender stereotypes, disregarded legal protections afforded to individuals with sealed arrests, and weaponized internal discipline to favor politically connected individuals while punishing those without such affiliations.”

Allegations of Gender Discrimination and Gender Stereotyping

According to the Verified Complaint, Romero was accused in 2021 of domestic violence by a young female acquaintance with whom he had a close personal relationship. Despite the dismissal and sealing of the criminal charges in January 2022, the NYPD continued disciplinary action against Romero, culminating in his termination.

Romero alleges that NYPD officials presumed, based on gender stereotypes, that he was the primary aggressor in the domestic dispute. The disciplinary tribunal, led by Deputy Commissioner Trials Rosemarie Maldonado and Assistant Deputy Commissioner Vanessa Facio-Lince, systematically dismissed Romero’s claims of self-defense and disregarded credible exculpatory evidence.

Romero’s complaint further outlines how male officers like himself faced heightened scrutiny and harsher penalties in domestic incidents compared to similarly situated female officers, who often received lenient treatment or had charges dismissed outright.

“The NYPD’s disciplinary system operates on the harmful assumption that male officers are inherently guilty in domestic disputes,” Sanders said. “This presumption deprived Mr. Romero of a fair hearing and reflects a broader pattern of gender-based discrimination.”

Arrest Record Discrimination in Violation of State and City Law

The lawsuit further alleges that the NYPD unlawfully relied on Romero’s dismissed and sealed arrest record to initiate and sustain internal disciplinary charges, in direct violation of New York Criminal Procedure Law §§ 160.50 and 160.60, as well as protections afforded under the New York State Human Rights Law (Executive Law § 296(16)) and the New York City Human Rights Law (Administrative Code § 8-107(11)).

Under CPL §§ 160.50 and 160.60, once criminal charges are dismissed and sealed, the underlying arrest is deemed a nullity; the individual is to be treated as if the arrest and proceedings had never occurred. New York courts have consistently held that sealed arrests cannot serve as the basis for employment decisions, including disciplinary action, unless an employer can establish independent evidence of misconduct that bears a direct relationship to job performance or creates an unreasonable risk to public safety.

Romero contends that despite these clear legal mandates, the NYPD, through its Department Advocate’s Office, led at the time by Litwin, improperly prosecuted him by relying on the allegations associated with his dismissed and sealed arrest. The Verified Complaint asserts that the Department Advocate presented no new, independent evidence beyond the sealed incident and failed to demonstrate any direct relationship between the dismissed allegations and Romero’s fitness to serve as a police officer or any unreasonable risk to public safety.

Romero’s claims are consistent with recent judicial findings where courts have repeatedly criticized the NYPD for violating sealed records statutes in internal disciplinary proceedings. In decisions such as Matter of Anonymous v. New York City Police Department and Holloway v. City of New York, courts emphasized that NYPD disciplinary bodies must respect the legal finality and confidentiality protections associated with sealing statutes and cannot simply re-prosecute dismissed allegations under the guise of internal discipline.

“The NYPD’s use of Mr. Romero’s sealed arrest record was not merely a procedural irregularity — it was a fundamental violation of state law and well-established public policy protecting individuals from being stigmatized based on arrests that the criminal justice system has explicitly wiped away,” said Sanders. “The entire purpose of sealing is to ensure that people are not continually punished or discriminated against because of unfounded accusations. In Mr. Romero’s case, the NYPD showed blatant disregard for that protection.”

Sanders added, “By weaponizing a sealed arrest against Mr. Romero, the Department violated not only the letter of the law but also the spirit of fairness and rehabilitation that underpins New York’s sealing statutes. This misconduct further underscores the systemic flaws in the NYPD’s disciplinary system that this lawsuit seeks to expose and remedy.”

Arbitrary Discipline, Systemic Favoritism, and Senior Official Misconduct

Romero’s Verified Complaint meticulously documents a pattern of arbitrary, biased, and politically motivated disciplinary outcomes within the NYPD, exposing a deep culture of favoritism protected and perpetuated by the Department’s most senior officials.

Among the comparators cited:

• Police Officer Willie Thompson: Engaged in sexual relations with a female witness during an active carjacking investigation. Despite a tribunal recommendation of termination, Caban intervened, overturning the decision and imposing only a 30-day loss of vacation time and dismissal probation.

• Police Officer Kimberly Lucas: Pleaded guilty to falsifying COVID-19 vaccination documents — an act of fraud and misconduct undermining departmental integrity. Again, although termination was recommended, Caban reduced the penalty to a mere forfeiture of vacation days and probation.

• Sergeant Omar Salem: Committed domestic violence against his spouse but was never arrested or terminated, receiving only minor internal discipline despite credible allegations of physical abuse under former Commissioner Dermot F. Shea.

• Detective Marissa Sorocco: Found guilty of intentionally setting fire to marital property in an arson incident, yet allowed to retain her title and only suffered minimal penalties under former Commissioner James P. O’Neill.

• Police Officer Delare Rathour was found guilty of engaging in two separate incidents of domestic violence and reckless endangerment against his wife. In the first incident, Rathour shoved his wife into a closet, causing serious spinal injuries. In the second incident, despite an active order of protection, Rathour drove recklessly with his wife in the vehicle, running red lights and endangering her life, all of which was captured on video. Assistant Deputy Commissioner Jeff Adler strongly recommended Rathour’s termination after finding a blatant disregard for public and familial safety. Nevertheless, Caban deviated from this recommendation and imposed lesser penalties, allegedly due to Rathour’s political affiliation with influential individuals in the NYPD.

These officers, who engaged in serious and sometimes criminal conduct, were shielded from termination due to personal and political affiliations with NYPD leadership. In contrast, Romero, with no political ties and facing only a dismissed and sealed arrest, was subjected to disproportionately harsh treatment, culminating in termination.

More troubling, Romero’s Complaint alleges that favoritism was not limited to rank-and-file officers. Senior NYPD leadership, including multiple past Police Commissioners, routinely violated NYPD Patrol Guide regulations prohibiting association with individuals engaged in criminal conduct. Romero details how senior executives frequently socialized with the principal of a Bronx restaurant who publicly admitted to a criminal history involving narcotics trafficking, prostitution, and related activities.

Despite clear prohibitions against associating with persons reasonably believed to be engaging in criminal conduct, these relationships were tolerated and normalized within the NYPD’s upper ranks, without any disciplinary consequences.

“How can the NYPD claim to enforce standards of conduct among its officers when its leadership blatantly violates them?” asked Sanders. “The same officials who terminated Mr. Romero based on a dismissed and sealed arrest continued to maintain improper relationships with individuals tied to organized criminal activity — yet faced no investigation, no charges, and no accountability.”

Romero alleges that this deeply entrenched culture of favoritism corrupted the disciplinary system from the top down. The seriousness of the misconduct did not determine termination and discipline, but by the political connections of the accused — a system that punished the politically unprotected while shielding those with connections.

“The message was clear: loyalty and relationships mattered more than integrity and fairness,” Sanders said. “The NYPD’s leadership created and maintained a two-tiered system — rewarding insiders and sacrificing those who dared to assert their rights.”

The Verified Complaint asserts that this systemic favoritism, gender-based discrimination, unlawful reliance on sealed arrests, and retaliation for protected activities ultimately led to Romero’s wrongful termination, causing devastating economic, emotional, and reputational harm.

Retaliation for Asserting Protected Rights

In addition to discrimination, Romero claims he was retaliated against for asserting his rights under New York’s civil rights laws. After raising defenses based on self-defense, gender bias, and sealed arrest protections during the disciplinary process, Romero states that disciplinary charges were escalated, and threats of termination increased.

According to the Verified Complaint, Caban and Sewell permitted this retaliation to proceed unchecked, further evidencing a coordinated effort to punish Romero for exercising his protected rights.

“Instead of correcting the discriminatory process, senior leadership retaliated against Mr. Romero for standing up for himself,” Sanders said. “Retaliation for asserting legal rights is unlawful and morally reprehensible.”

Relief Sought

Romero’s Verified Complaint demands compensatory damages, punitive damages, back pay, front pay, lost pension rights, reinstatement or comparable equitable relief, and attorney’s fees and costs.

The action also seeks a declaratory judgment finding that the Defendants’ conduct violates the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law, including their amendments that require independent and liberal interpretation under the Local Civil Rights Restoration Act of 2005.

“The culture of bias, favoritism, and retaliation within the NYPD cannot continue unchecked,” Sanders said. “Through this lawsuit, Mr. Romero seeks justice not just for himself, but to hold officials accountable and protect future officers from similar mistreatment.”

About ¸ŁŔűĽ§.

Fighting for Justice and Reform to Promote Equal Opportunity

Led by Eric Sanders, Esq., ¸ŁŔűĽ§. has a proven track record in civil rights litigation, representing clients in complex cases involving law enforcement misconduct and employment discrimination. Mr. Sanders, a former police officer himself, leverages deep insight into systemic issues facing law enforcement agencies. The firm has successfully recovered millions in damages and remains committed to promoting fairness, integrity, and meaningful reform within public institutions.

Contact: Eric Sanders, Esq.
President and Owner, ¸ŁŔűĽ§.
30 Wall Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Phone: (212) 652-2782

###

Read the Verified Complaint

The post Ex-NYPD Officer Files Civil Rights Lawsuit Against City, Top NYPD Officials Alleging Gender Discrimination, Arrest Record Bias, and Political Favoritism first appeared on ¸ŁŔűĽ§..

Rodriques, who is Black and of Jamaican descent, was appointed in 2023 as the Integrity Control Officer (ICO) of the 34th Precinct in Washington Heights. The position is designed to ensure ethical compliance and accountability within the command. But according to the complaint, the role quickly placed him at odds with a robust network of officers led by Commanding Officer Aneudy Castillo, Executive Officer Erickson Peralta, and Special Operations Lieutenant Michael J. Disanto—supervisors who, the lawsuit alleges, engaged in systemic corruption and retaliated against him for refusing to participate.

A Culture of Selective Enforcement and Political Protection

At the heart of the lawsuit is a disturbing allegation: that law enforcement at the 34th Precinct was not guided by public safety or departmental policy, but by private interest and political favoritism. The complaint identifies James Caban, the twin brother of then–Police Commissioner Edward A. Caban, as a central figure in what Rodriques calls a “protection racket” operating inside the NYPD. According to the complaint, Castillo and James Caban maintained a covert alliance in which precinct enforcement decisions—including which businesses to target and which to ignore—were shaped by Caban’s personal relationships and undisclosed interests.

Rodriques alleges that nightlife venues and businesses in Washington Heights with ties to James Caban were categorically insulated from enforcement. Officers were instructed to disregard complaints, avoid making arrests, and even suppress 311 calls involving these locations. When officers attempted to do their jobs, they were overruled. Castillo, often from his own home, would call precinct supervisors to ensure that enforcement was halted. Officers who complied were rewarded; those who questioned the directives were marginalized.

According to the lawsuit, this secret arrangement was not only known to Castillo’s leadership team but also enforced as policy. When Rodriques raised concerns about this illegal conduct, he was met not with internal review but with hostility.

Retaliation Begins: From ICO to Target

Rodriques’s refusal to participate in what he described as unlawful favoritism made him a liability to his command. Instead of being praised for upholding NYPD values, he was excluded from meetings, reassigned, denied overtime, and ultimately stripped of his responsibilities as an ICO. His authority eroded, and his professional standing was targeted.

The retaliation deepened when Castillo and his lieutenants began referring to themselves as “the mafia.” This was not hyperbole. According to the Verified Complaint, Rodriques was warned that if he had a problem with one of them, “he had a problem with the entire family.” That family, the lawsuit alleges, included other supervisors and insiders who viewed loyalty to Castillo, rather than the law, as the top priority. For Rodriques, the message was clear: integrity had become a threat to power.

The Overtime Racket and Financial Retaliation

The Verified Complaint further details a scheme of financial misconduct involving fraudulent overtime assignments. While favored officers like Lieutenant Disanto and his driver, Officer Vincent Bracco, were allegedly guaranteed at least 40 hours of overtime per month—regardless of actual duty—Rodriques was deliberately excluded from these opportunities, despite his rank, qualifications, and availability.

Even worse, overtime codes designated for public safety deployments, such as responses to Israeli protest-related threats, were repurposed to pay insiders without justification. Disanto was promoted to Lieutenant Special Assignment, not based on merit, but as a reward for loyalty to Castillo’s leadership. Meanwhile, Rodriques’s overtime was withheld, and he was systematically denied professional development opportunities as further punishment for his resistance.

Weaponized Psychological Review and Medical Harassment

In a move reminiscent of NYPD’s historical use of psychological referrals to silence whistleblowers—especially Black and Caribbean officers—Rodriques was ordered to submit to repeated evaluations by Psychological Services. Despite having no history of mental health concerns and no incidents that would justify such a referral, he was stripped of his firearm and reassigned to restricted duty. The psychological review, the lawsuit asserts, was not intended to protect him or the public. It was a weapon wielded to discredit and isolate him.

The harassment continued while Rodriques was on approved medical leave for a serious cardiac condition. Castillo repeatedly called him, accusing him of “playing sick” and demanding that he work from home, even though such demands directly violated his treating physician’s instructions. On several occasions, Castillo launched profanity-laced tirades during these calls, which were loud enough for Rodriques’s ten-year-old child to overhear, causing emotional distress that extended beyond the officer to his family.

Public Disclosure Forces Sudden Reinstatement

On February 13, 2025, Rodriques filed a formal Charge of Discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In that charge, he outlined the racial and gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliatory abuse he had endured. Two days later, he gave an interview to the New York Post detailing the allegations. The article went public on February 15, 2025, and within days—after nearly a year of unexplained restricted duty and coerced psychological evaluation—Rodriques was suddenly and quietly restored to full duty.

No explanation was ever provided for his prior restriction, and no findings were issued to justify the psychological referral. The lawsuit contends that the timing of this abrupt reinstatement underscores the retaliatory nature of the NYPD’s actions—and its desire to avoid public scrutiny.

Retaliation Escalates: The Ortiz Lawsuit and Internal Complaint

Within four days of the New York Post article’s publication, Sergeant Christina Ortiz filed a civil defamation lawsuit and internal discrimination complaint against Rodriques. Ortiz, who the lawsuit alleges had engaged in an inappropriate sexual relationship with Lieutenant Disanto inside 34th Precinct offices, claimed that Rodriques defamed her. But the lawsuit sees the filing as something more: a retaliatory strike, filed at the exact moment Rodriques was gaining public and legal support.

According to the Verified Complaint, Ortiz was never investigated for her misconduct. No questions were asked about the evidence left behind in precinct offices, including broken nails and the abandonment of her domestic violence unit responsibilities. Instead, Ortiz was promoted to the Internal Affairs Bureau, the very unit responsible for investigating misconduct like her own.

The complaint argues that the department’s failure to review Ortiz’s claims, coupled with her promotion, reveals the NYPD’s willingness to protect insiders and weaponize legal processes to silence dissenters.

A Lawsuit for Accountability, Not Just Relief

Lieutenant Rodriques’s lawsuit asserts ten causes of action under the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws. These include race discrimination, gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation for protected activity. Two distinct causes of action are also dedicated to retaliatory abuse of legal and internal processes, specifically naming the City of New York and Ortiz for filing a baseless lawsuit and internal complaint shortly after Rodriques’s EEOC charge and media disclosures.

The complaint names Edward A. Caban, the former Police Commissioner, as a defendant, not solely for his familial relationship to James Caban, but also for his institutional inaction. According to the lawsuit, Caban knew or should have known about the protection racket operating within the 34th Precinct, yet took no steps to intervene. His silence, the complaint asserts, was not neutrality but ratification. And it was under his leadership that Rodriques’s career was nearly destroyed for doing his job.

A Broader Call for Structural Change

According to attorney Eric Sanders, the case is about far more than one officer’s mistreatment. It is a window into how the NYPD preserves power by protecting misconduct, retaliating against whistleblowers, and weaponizing internal procedures against officers who speak up. Rodriques, Sanders emphasizes, is the kind of officer the public wants: ethical, observant, and committed to fairness. Yet for trying to uphold the law, he was punished by the very institution charged with enforcing it.

“This is not just a hostile work environment,” Sanders said. “It is a retaliatory, coercive culture that treats integrity as a threat. Lieutenant Rodriques followed the rules. He did the right thing. And for that, his reputation, career, and health were attacked. This lawsuit seeks justice not only for him, but for every officer who has been told to �shut up or be silenced.’”

The Verified Complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages, declaratory relief, and structural change. It calls for a full accounting of NYPD’s internal retaliation practices, an independent review of political interference in enforcement decisions, and reform of psychological referral protocols to prevent future abuse.

As the litigation progresses, the case is expected to shed light on long-standing issues within the NYPD’s command culture—problems that cannot be resolved through training alone but require transparency, courage, and an unwavering commitment to justice.

Contact:

For media inquiries, legal commentary, or to support Mr. Andino’s case, contact:

¸ŁŔűĽ§.
30 Wall Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10005
±Ęłó´Ç˛Ô±đ:Ěý212-652-2782

###

Read the Verified Complaint

The post Whistleblower NYPD Lieutenant Sues City, Exposes â€�Mafia Culture’ and Caban-Fueled Corruption first appeared on ¸ŁŔűĽ§..

New York, NY — April 20, 2025,Ěý a scathing new lawsuit filed in New York County Supreme Court alleges that the New York Police Department subjected recruit Emilio Andino, a Black male assigned to the Police Academy’s “Hook Company 24-56,” to racial harassment, sexualized abuse, and institutional retaliation due to his familial connection to former NYPD Lieutenant Quathisha Epps—a high-profile whistleblower who publicly accused ex-Chief of Department Jeffrey B. Maddrey of quid pro quo sexual harassment and executive misconduct.

Filed by civil rights attorney Eric Sanders of ¸ŁŔűĽ§., the lawsuit asserts that the retaliation against Andino began immediately after Epps filed a Charge of Discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on December 21, 2024, and publicly named Maddrey during a same-day interview with the New York Post.

“This case exemplifies how institutions retaliate not only against whistleblowers—but also those connected to them,” said attorney Eric Sanders. “Andino didn’t violate policy, commit a crime, or fail to perform. He was targeted because of who his aunt is and what she dared to expose.”

Protected Activity Turns to Institutional Backlash

According to the Verified Complaint, Andino was sworn into the NYPD Police Academy on October 30, 2024, and assigned to Hook Company 24-56—an honor extended to recruits with familial NYPD ties. His maternal aunt, former Lieutenant Quathisha Epps, had a well-known record of integrity and had actively guided Andino’s entry into the department.

That changed dramatically on December 21, 2024, when Epps filed a formal EEOC charge naming Maddrey and detailing a pattern of sexual coercion, institutional favoritism, and executive retaliation. On the same day, she gave an on-the-record interview to the New York Post.

By the following morning, Andino’s experience inside the Academy shifted from pride to paranoia. Rumors swirled about his aunt’s sexual history. Recruits and instructors alike made degrading comments, suggesting nude photos and sex tapes of Epps were circulating. Instructors said nothing. Fellow recruits whispered in hallways and locker rooms, and Andino became a proxy target in what the lawsuit describes as “an institutional campaign of reprisal.”

A Racially Charged Confrontation

The lawsuit focuses on a critical incident that occurred on April 1, 2025, involving fellow recruit Bahron Asliev, a white male who had repeatedly made racially hostile comments throughout the Academy. Witnesses allegedly heard Asliev use the phrase: “Act like a n****, get treated like a n.”*

On that day, during a courtroom testimony training exercise on the sixth floor of the Academy, Andino gave Asliev feedback following the drill. Asliev exploded in response, reportedly saying: “Well if you could’ve done better, why didn’t you volunteer? You’re just a p**** and a bitch.”

As the class was dismissed and recruits moved down the stairwell, Asliev continued the abuse. On the third-floor landing, he confronted Andino face-to-face, saying: “What are you going to do if I don’t shut up?” When they reached the first floor, Asliev escalated again, stating: “You and your 12-year-old son can suck my d***.”

In shock, Andino raised his hands to create distance. His hand made incidental contact with Asliev’s face. That moment became the pretext for immediate and one-sided disciplinary action.

A Biased and Retaliatory Investigation

The complaint alleges that supervising sergeant JOHN DOE 1 rushed in failed to ask any questions, and immediately began treating Andino as the aggressor. Surveillance cameras line the stairwells and lobby, yet no one—including Internal Affairs, the Office of Equity and Inclusion, or Academy staff—reviewed the footage.

Lieutenant Elizabeth M. Laboy and Lieutenant arrived next. Instead of conducting a neutral inquiry, they allegedly spent “inordinate amounts of time” with Asliev, comforting him and casting him as a victim. Meanwhile, Andino was isolated, closely monitored, and reportedly denied even a basic wellness check. His 12-year-old son, present that day, was left unattended.

Hours later, around 12:30 a.m. on April 2, PBA Delegate and a PBA attorney met with Andino. After hearing his full account, they allegedly advised him to resign, warning that failure to do so would result in permanent exclusion from City employment. Neither Henry nor the PBA attorney contacted Internal Affairs or OEI, violating clear NYPD protocols.

At approximately 12:45 a.m., Andino was formally interviewed by an investigative unit, including JOHN DOES 2–5 and a supervising JOHN DOE 6, believed to be a chief. Present for the interview were Henry and Tynan. Despite Andino’s clear and complete statement, he was immediately suspended without pay. No disciplinary action was taken against Asliev.

Systemic Silence: Witnesses Intimidated

The complaint details how other recruits each overheard Asliev bragging about provoking Andino and using racial epithets. One recruit, shocked by the comment “If you act like a n****, get treated like a n,”* confronted Asliev. Yet none of the three officers reported the behavior.

Why? According to the lawsuit, they had witnessed what happened to Andino—how speaking up would end a career before it even began. NYPD training emphasized reporting, but NYPD culture discouraged it.

Different Commissioner, Same Result: From Sewell to Tisch—All Under Adams, Retaliation Still Rules the NYPD

Despite a rapid succession of police commissioners under Mayor Eric Adams, the NYPD’s entrenched culture of retaliation has remained untouched. From Keechant Sewell to Edward A. Caban, then Thomas G. Donlon, and now Jessica Tisch, the leadership may have changed. Still, the department’s treatment of those who dare to challenge power, especially whistleblowers and their families, has not.

Commissioner Keechant Sewell, the first woman to lead the NYPD, presided over the early period of internal tension involving Maddrey. Despite being aware of Epps’ complaints and the growing friction, she took no public or institutional steps to curb the retaliatory culture that was forming in response.

Edward A. Caban succeeded her in July 2023. As the department’s first Latino commissioner, there was hope for reform, but Caban’s brief tenure showed continued deference to internal politics.

On September 13, 2024, Thomas G. Donlon—a former FBI counterterrorism agent—was appointed as Police Commissioner following the resignation of Edward A. Caban. According to the lawsuit, it was during Donlon’s brief tenure that the retaliatory environment inside the NYPD Police Academy escalated significantly. Despite rising internal concerns and Andino’s worsening treatment, no institutional safeguards were implemented. No protocols were enforced. No inquiries were launched. Under Donlon’s leadership, the department failed to intervene, allowing harassment, bias, and retaliation to deepen unchallenged.

By the time Jessica Tisch was appointed in late November 2024, Andino had already been suspended without pay, his reputation tarnished, and no action was taken against the fellow recruit who had allegedly harassed him. Under Tisch’s command, nothing changed. Video evidence wasn’t reviewed. Witness statements weren’t gathered. The Office of Equity and Inclusion remained silent. The institutional message, according to the lawsuit, was clear: protecting whistleblowers-or their relatives—was not a priority.

“Andino’s case shows us what happens when leadership becomes a revolving door, but the machinery of retaliation never stops turning,” said Sanders. “Sewell ignored it. Caban enabled it. Donlon was compromised. Tisch refused to act. And through it all, Mayor Adams stood at the helm, watching his department punish the innocent.”

Although the lawsuit formally names Maddrey, numerous officers, and the City of New York, its implications extend well beyond the individual defendants. It asks a fundamental question of the Adams administration: How many more changes in title will it take before someone takes responsibility?

“The message under Adams has been consistent,” Sanders concluded. “It’s never about reform. It’s about self-protection. And anyone—even a young recruit—who threatens that culture becomes expendable.”

Maddrey’s Central Role

The complaint reserves particular condemnation for , who retired from the NYPD in December 2024, just days after Epps’ complaint and the Post article went public.

As Chief of Department, Maddrey wielded significant authority over training, internal discipline, and the Academy’s chain of command. The complaint alleges that he had direct knowledge of the retaliation against Epps and made no attempt to mitigate foreseeable harm to her family. His failure to act, the lawsuit claims, functioned as a “tacit endorsement of reprisal.”

The complaint also reveals that Maddrey had a lengthy disciplinary record, including substantiated findings by the Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) and a 2017 internal guilty plea related to obstructing an investigation involving an alleged “consensual” sexual relationship with a subordinate. Despite this, Maddrey continued to rise through the ranks of the NYPD.

Andino’s lawsuit follows separate pending lawsuits involving Maddrey, filed by Captain Gabrielle Walls and advocate Dana Rachlin, both of whom allege retaliation tied to sexual harassment or whistleblowing.

The Legal Claims

The Verified Complaint asserts eight causes of action under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), including:

• Race Discrimination

• Gender Discrimination

• Hostile Work Environment

• Retaliation

• Aiding and Abetting by supervisors and peers

Andino seeks compensatory and punitive damages, a declaratory judgment, and attorneys’ fees. He has not brought federal constitutional claims at this stage.

“This was not an internal misunderstanding—it was a calculated, institutional response to a whistleblower’s family member,” said Sanders. “The City has to reckon with how it retaliates not just directly, but through proxy punishment.”

A Department-Wide Crisis of Accountability

The press release concludes with a broader call for transparency, accountability, and reform. The NYPD’s retaliatory culture, the complaint argues, doesn’t merely silence victims—it discourages witnesses, protects misconduct, and perpetuates discriminatory systems.

“This case is about more than Emilio Andino,” said Sanders. “It’s about what happens when a department tolerates misconduct at the top, punishes truth-tellers, and makes compliance a condition of survival.”

As of today, the case remains pending in New York County Supreme Court.

Contact:

For media inquiries, legal commentary, or to support Mr. Andino’s case, contact:

¸ŁŔűĽ§.
30 Wall Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10005
±Ęłó´Ç˛Ô±đ:Ěý212-652-2782

###

Read the Verified Complaint

The post NYPD Leadership Accused of Enabling Harassment and Retaliation Against Black Recruit Tied to Maddrey Whistleblower first appeared on ¸ŁŔűĽ§..

Legal Complaint Exposes Systemic Bias in the NYPD’s Internal Discipline Process and Unlawful Retaliation Against Officers Who Challenge Its Legitimacy

New York, NY – March 6, 2025, Former New York City Police Department (NYPD) Officer Nicholas Hernandez has filed a federal lawsuit against the City of New York, Police Commissioner Jessica S. Tisch, Former Commissioner Edward A. Caban, and Former Deputy Commissioner Amy J. Litwin, alleging that he was forced out of the department through a deliberate pattern of retaliation, selective enforcement, and gender-based discrimination in the disciplinary process.

The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, claims that Hernandez was deprived of his constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, subjected to retaliation for challenging the disciplinary process, and pressured into filing for early retirement under the direct threat of termination from Commissioner Tisch.

At the heart of the legal complaint is the allegation that the NYPD’s disciplinary process is inherently arbitrary, disproportionately targeting male officers—particularly those accused of domestic-related incidents—while affording leniency to officers with political connections or those who fit a different demographic profile. The lawsuit alleges that Hernandez was subjected to selective enforcement, where NYPD leadership, including Commissioner Tisch, departed from standard disciplinary practices to force his resignation.

Furthermore, Hernandez claims that his case is part of a broader trend in which officers accused of wrongdoing are systematically denied procedural safeguards, such as the right to present legal defenses and confront their accusers, leading to unfair and predetermined outcomes.

A Disciplinary System Plagued by Political Interference and Bias

Hernandez’s lawsuit underscores broader and longstanding concerns regarding the NYPD’s internal disciplinary system, which has frequently been criticized for its alleged favoritism, political influence, and inconsistent enforcement of disciplinary standards.ĚýThe allegations raised in Hernandez’s complaint are consistent with findings from an independent panel report commissioned in 2019 by then-NYPD Commissioner James O’Neill. The report exposed troubling disparities within the department’s disciplinary system. The panel of legal and law enforcement experts found that the NYPD’s approach to discipline was often inconsistent, with officers receiving vastly different penalties for similar infractions based on factors that had nothing to do with the severity of their misconduct.

The report highlighted how political affiliations and personal relationships with high-ranking NYPD officials frequently played a decisive role in determining an officer’s fate when facing disciplinary action. Officers who were well-connected or had the favor of department leadership often saw their cases quietly dismissed or faced minimal consequences. In contrast, officers without political backing—or those who had fallen out of favor with NYPD leadership—were subjected to severe penalties, often disproportionately so, without a clear justification for the discrepancy. This system, the report suggested, not only compromised the integrity of NYPD’s disciplinary process but also raised serious concerns about transparency, fairness, and the equitable application of justice within the department.

Hernandez’s lawsuit alleges that he became a direct victim of this flawed system, one that allowed selective enforcement to dictate the outcomes of disciplinary proceedings. According to the complaint, Hernandez was assured that a disciplinary matter related to a minor administrative violation had been resolved. However, in a move that he claims was motivated by retaliation and bias, NYPD leadership—under the direction of Commissioner Jessica Tisch—suddenly reopened the case against him, using it to inflict further punishment and ultimately force him out of the department.

The complaint contends there was no legitimate reason to revisit the matter, especially since Hernandez had already faced penalties for the original incident. Instead, the lawsuit alleges that reopening the case was a clear example of selective enforcement, demonstrating how factors beyond the case’s merits often drive NYPD’s disciplinary decisions.

Further compounding the unfairness, the complaint alleges that while Hernandez was subjected to escalating disciplinary measures, other officers—particularly female officers accused of similar or even more serious infractions—were either never investigated, received minimal punishment, or were otherwise shielded from the kind of scrutiny he faced. Hernandez asserts that this pattern of disparate treatment is not incidental but reflects a more profound, systemic issue within the NYPD, where male officers—especially those involved in domestic incidents—are disproportionately targeted. In contrast, female officers benefit from institutional leniency.

The lawsuit alleges that this gender-based disparity in disciplinary actions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and federal, state, and city laws prohibiting employment discrimination. By holding male officers to a different disciplinary standard than their female counterparts, Hernandez contends that the NYPD has reinforced outdated and biased assumptions—notably the presumption that male officers are more likely to be the aggressors in domestic disputes while affording women the benefit of the doubt, regardless of the facts in individual cases.

Department Trial: A Flawed and Biased Process

Hernandez’s lawsuit highlights fundamental flaws in the NYPD’s trial system. It allegesĚýthat officers accused of misconduct are systematically denied due process. He contends that NYPD disciplinary tribunals regularly dismiss key legal defenses, rely on hearsay, and prioritize punitive outcomes over fairness.

During his department trial, Hernandez was prohibited from asserting crucial legal defenses, including justifications under New York State Penal Law for self-defense and defense of premises. His complaint further alleges that hearsay testimony was improperly given substantial weight while exculpatory evidence was disregarded or minimized.

The NYPD’s internal disciplinary process has long been criticized for its lack of transparency, disregard for procedural fairness, and susceptibility to outside influence. Hernandez alleges that his case demonstrates how officers who attempt to assert legal protections or challenge the department’s handling of their cases are systematically denied the ability to do so. He contends this biased approach led to a predetermined guilty finding and disproportionately severe penalties.

Retaliation and the Reopening of a Previously Closed Disciplinary Matter

After fully serving the disciplinary penalties previously imposed upon him, Hernandez was assured that no further action would be taken against him. However, his lawsuit describes a shocking reversal he claims was unjust and a clear act of retaliation orchestrated by NYPD leadership under Commissioner Jessica Tisch. In early 2025, the department unexpectedly reopened a previously resolved matter against him, which Hernandez alleges was intended to create additional grounds for his removal from the force.

According to the complaint, the issue stemmed from a TikTok video on January 25, 2024, depicting Hernandez’s vehicle with a license plate covering. At the time, Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) Group No. 31 reviewed the footage and conducted an internal inquiry. Shortly thereafter, a memorandum (UF49) was issued by IAB, notifying Hernandez’s precinct commander about the alleged violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL) § 402.1(b). Despite this notification, no disciplinary action was deemed necessary, and Hernandez continued his service in good standing.

For months, Hernandez believed the matter had been resolved. His chain of command or IAB did not indicate any further proceedings were anticipated. Yet, in April 2024—long after the alleged violation and with no intervening infractions—Hernandez was unexpectedly summoned to a department interview regarding the very same license plate issue.

The lawsuit alleges that this sudden reversal was not a coincidence but a deliberate act of retaliation. Hernandez contends that the NYPD leadership, specifically Commissioner Tisch, utilized this minor, previously dismissed administrative matter as a pretext to intensify disciplinary proceedings against him. By dragging him back into the department’s disciplinary system without any new evidence or justification, the department allegedly sought to create the illusion of persistent misconduct. This illusion could then be used to justify his eventual termination.

Gender Discrimination and Disparate Treatment in Disciplinary Matters

Hernandez’s lawsuit claims that the NYPD systematically discriminates against male officers in disciplinary matters, particularly in cases involving domestic incidents. He alleges that male officers are presumed to be the aggressors in such cases and are disproportionately subjected to harsh penalties, while female officers accused of similar misconduct routinely receive leniency.

The complaint highlights multiple instances where female officers facing domestic violence allegations or other infractions received minimal penalties—or no discipline at all—while male officers, including Hernandez, were subjected to extreme punishments, including termination. The lawsuit contends that these double standards violate federal and state anti-discrimination laws.

Hernandez claims that NYPD leadership, including Commissioner Tisch, enforces disciplinary policies in a gender-biased manner, reinforcing outdated stereotypes that assume male officers are inherently more culpable in domestic disputes while affording female officers more leniency. This pattern of discrimination, the lawsuit claims, has been observed in multiple NYPD disciplinary decisions over the years.

Eric Sanders, Esq., ofĚý¸ŁŔűĽ§., stated:

“This lawsuit exposes the NYPD’s deeply flawed disciplinary system, which punishes officers not based on fairness or facts but on selective enforcement, political favoritism, and gender bias. Nicholas Hernandez was assured that his disciplinary matters had been resolved, yet the department arbitrarily reopened a closed case against him—months after the fact—in what appears to be a calculated effort to force him out. This was not about accountability; this was about retaliation.

The NYPD has a well-documented history of applying its disciplinary policies inconsistently, disproportionately targeting male officers while affording leniency to female officers accused of similar or even more severe misconduct. Hernandez’s claims are not just about one officer—they reflect a broader pattern of discriminatory enforcement that violates both state and federal laws. His case challenges the NYPD’s unchecked ability to manipulate its internal processes to punish those without political protection, and it demands accountability for a system that continues to operate without transparency or fairness.”

Contact Information:

¸ŁŔűĽ§.
30 Wall Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10005
±Ęłó´Ç˛Ô±đ:Ěý212-652-2782

###

Read the Federal Complaint

Read the Independent Panel Report

The post Discipline by Double Standards: Ex-NYPD Officer Sues Over Gender Bias and Selective Punishment first appeared on ¸ŁŔűĽ§..

Veteran NYPD Lieutenant Files EEOC Charge Alleging Racial Discrimination, Retaliation, and Corruption Within the DepartmentĚý

New York, NY – February 13, 2025, Lieutenant Emelio C. Rodrigues, a decorated officer with over two decades of service in the New York City Police Department (NYPD), has filed a Charge of Discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against the City of New York – NYPD Legal Bureau. The charge, filed under EEOC Charge Number: 520-2025-03104, alleges that the NYPD engaged in racial discrimination, subjected him to a hostile work environment, and retaliated against him for exposing corruption and misconduct within the department.

Rodrigues asserts that he became the target of systematic retaliation after refusing to comply with selective enforcement practices that shielded certain nightlife establishments from legal scrutiny due to their connections with high-ranking NYPD officials. He further contends that his refusal to participate in these corrupt practices resulted in an ongoing campaign of intimidation, professional sabotage, and efforts to destroy his career.

According to the charge, Rodrigues witnessed a coordinated effort by senior officials, including Commanding Officer Aneudy Castillo, Executive Officer Erickson Peralta, Special Operations Lieutenant Michael J. Disanto, and Former Administrative Lieutenant Jonathan Cruz, within the 34th Precinct, which covers Washington Heights, to selectively enforce or ignore laws based on personal relationships and undisclosed financial interests. He specifically alleges that James Caban, the twin brother of former Police Commissioner Edward A. Caban, maintained an undisclosed relationship with Castillo. ThisĚýresulted in regular phone calls and in-person meetings where selective enforcement decisions were made. These discussions allegedly determined which businesses and individuals within the Washington Heights area were subject to police action and which were shielded from enforcement. As a result, certain nightclubs and lounges with ties to the former commissioner’s family were deliberately exempted from law enforcement oversight, regardless of the volume of complaints or criminal activities reported at those locations.

Rodrigues claims that officers were explicitly ordered to disregard violations and close out 311 complaints about these establishments without taking action. Despite numerous reports involving crimes such as noise violations, illegal activities, and disturbances, Castillo and Disanto directed officers to refrain from enforcement efforts and suppress any police response. Rodrigues, responsible for overseeing operations, questioned these unlawful practices, which he believes led to immediate retaliation against him.

The charge details a pattern of financial misconduct within the department, including manipulating overtime assignments for personal gain. Rodrigues states that Castillo ensured that Lieutenant Disanto and Officer Vincent G. Bracco were granted no less than 40 hours of overtime per month despite not performing legitimate law enforcement duties. Overtime codes intended for specific events, including Israeli protests, were misused to funnel taxpayer money into the paychecks of favored officers. Disanto received a discretionary promotion to Lieutenant Special Assignment in exchange for their loyalty, while Castillo was overlooked despite expecting his promotion. Rodrigues contends that his refusal to participate in these fraudulent practices led to further targeting by Castillo and his associates.

The charge also alleges that Rodrigues endured a hostile work environment, where Castillo and Disanto openly referred to themselves as “the mafia” and warned him that if one of them had a problem with him, the entire “family” did. This workplace hostility escalated after Rodrigues went out on medical leave due to a cardiac condition. During this time, Castillo called him repeatedly, accusing him of “playing sick” and demanding that he work from home despite his medical restrictions. On several occasions, Castillo launched profanity-laced tirades over the phone, which were overheard by Rodrigues’ ten-year-old child, causing lasting emotional distress. When Rodrigues resisted these demands, Castillo took further retaliatory action by making false allegations about his mental health, which resulted in the unjust removal of his firearm and his placement on restricted duty.

Rodrigues’ EEOC filing details how Castillo and his associates deliberately undermined his career by blocking his overtime, reassigning him to the midnight shift, and falsely reporting him as insubordinate to superior officers. Castillo allegedly contacted Rodrigues’ new command and instructed them not to extend him any professional courtesies, ensuring his reputation was tarnished. His opportunities for advancement within the NYPD were severely limited.

In addition to the financial misconduct and retaliation, the charge outlines allegations of sexual misconduct within the department, specifically involving Lieutenant Disanto and Former Domestic Violence Sergeant Christina Ortiz. Rodrigues, as alleged in the charge, claims that Disanto and Ortiz engaged in an inappropriate sexual relationship within 34th Precinct offices, including the Domestic Violence Office and the Commanding Officer’s Office, with clear evidence left behind, such as broken nails found in offices where these encounters occurred. Rodrigues contends that Castillo was fully aware of this misconduct but chose to ignore it, further reinforcing the department’s corruption culture, as alleged in the charge.

Despite meeting all qualifications necessary for reinstatement to full duty, Rodrigues remains unjustly restricted with no explanation. The charge states that his prolonged restriction is a direct act of retaliation designed to diminish his career and silence his ongoing concerns regarding NYPD misconduct. The refusal to reinstate him to full duty has negatively impacted his ability to earn overtime, pursue promotions, and perform his responsibilities as a law enforcement officer.

Through his EEOC charge, Rodrigues seeks multiple remedies, including full reinstatement to duty, removal of all retaliatory employment actions from his record, compensatory damages for lost wages and emotional distress, and an independent federal investigation into the NYPD’s systemic corruption and selective enforcement practices.

His attorney, Eric Sanders, Esq., stated, “Lieutenant Rodrigues has dedicated over two decades to protecting and serving the people of New York, only to be repaid with retaliation, racial discrimination, and workplace harassment for doing the right thing. His case is a glaring example of the corruption within the NYPD’s upper ranks. No officer should be punished for refusing to engage in selective enforcement, payroll fraud, and cover-ups. We are calling for a full federal investigation into the practices of the NYPD and those responsible for Lieutenant Rodrigues’ mistreatment.”

The EEOC has officially acknowledged receipt of the charge and notified the City of New York—NYPD Legal Bureau. Under federal guidelines, the NYPD has ten days to respond. The case may also be referred to state and local Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPAs) for concurrent investigation.

Contact:

For media inquiries, legal commentary, or to support Mr. Rodriques’s case, contact:

¸ŁŔűĽ§.
30 Wall Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10005
±Ęłó´Ç˛Ô±đ:Ěý212-652-2782

###

EEOC Charge of Discrimination

The post NYPD “Mafia” Exposed: Lieutenant’s EEOC Complaint Reveals Retaliation, Corruption, and Selective Enforcement first appeared on ¸ŁŔűĽ§..

Explosive Allegations of Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Filed Against NYPD’s Chief of Department Jeffrey B. Maddrey

New York, NY – December 21, 2024 – Today, Lieutenant Quantisha Epps, represented by civil rights attorney Eric Sanders, Esq., of ¸ŁŔűĽ§., filed a formal charge with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against the New York City Police Department (NYPD) and Chief of Department Jeffrey B. Maddrey. This filing exposes an alleged troubling pattern of alleged quid pro quo sexual harassment, abuse of power, and retaliation within the nation’s largest police department. The charges detail the former Chief of the Department’s alleged exploitation of female subordinates, the systemic failures of the NYPD to intervene, and a culture of retaliation aimed at silencing victims.

Allegations of Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment

The complaint accuses former Chief Maddrey, the NYPD’s highest-ranking uniformed officer, of leveraging his position to coerce Lieutenant Epps into unwanted sexual acts in exchange for professional benefits, including overtime opportunities. The complaint further alleges that Maddrey used his knowledge of Epps’s financial vulnerabilities, emotional history, childhood trauma, and status as a survivor of domestic violence to manipulate her into compliance with his predatory demands.

The allegations outline a pattern of coercive behavior by Maddrey, including instructing Epps to facilitate access to another female officer, a survivor of domestic violence, to subject her to unwanted sexual advances and inappropriate conduct. This exploitation allegedly extended to other female employees in the department, highlighting a broader culture of predation within the NYPD’s senior ranks.

An Abuse of Power and Financial Coercion

Chief Maddrey is accused of financially exploiting Lieutenant Epps by granting her overtime opportunities only to demand monetary compensation. The complaint alleges that Maddrey forced Epps to pay for personal expenses, including funding a trip to Miami for him and his wife, creating financial and emotional strain on her. According to the filing, such conduct underscores a systemic misuse of power within the department to extract personal and financial benefits from vulnerable employees.

A Shocking Demand in December 2024

The filing reveals that on December 16, 2024, as Lieutenant Epps considered filing for retirement due to overwhelming retaliation and ‘false’ public accusations of overtime abuse, Chief Maddrey approached her in her office. He allegedly promised to speak with Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch on her behalf but only on the condition that she perform a coerced sexual act. Feeling she had no other choice, Epps complied under duress. Devastated by this interaction, she immediately filed for a Vested Interest Retirement Pension with the New York City Police Pension Fund. This incident, as alleged, represents the culmination of more than a year of abuse and exploitation.

Retaliation Through Manipulation and Investigations

The complaint also details Maddrey’s retaliation after Epps began to resist his advances. The filing alleges that senior NYPD officials, including First Deputy Commissioner Tania Kinsella and Lieutenant Leslie Trenor, manipulated Monthly Overtime Reports to portray Epps as an abuser of overtime falsely. Meanwhile, the Monthly Overtime Report was intentionally manipulated to hide the true number of overtime abusers throughout the department throughout former Police Commissioner Edward A. Caban’s administration and the current administration, especially in the offices of the First Deputy Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner of Operations Kaz R. Daughtry, Chief of Department, Chief of Patrol John M. Chell and others. Shortly after rejecting Maddrey, Epps became the target of a retaliatory criminal and internal investigation, further damaging her career and reputation.

Attorney Eric Sanders stated:
“The retaliatory measures taken against Lieutenant Epps represent a deliberate and calculated attempt to silence her and destroy her credibility. These actions are part of a broader pattern within the NYPD that protects abusers while punishing those who dare to come forward. Chief Maddrey’s conduct and the systemic failures that enabled it demand urgent accountability and reform.”

Systemic Failures Within the NYPD

The filing asserts that the NYPD has a long history of failing to protect female officers from predatory behavior by male supervisors, instead fostering a culture of silence, retaliation, and victim-blaming. Despite multiple misconduct allegations, Chief Maddrey was promoted to the highest uniformed position within the department by Mayor Eric L. Adams, raising serious questions about the city’s commitment to accountability and justice.

The systemic failures described in the filing extend beyond Maddrey’s actions, implicating senior NYPD leadership in enabling and perpetuating a hostile work environment. The complaint highlights how senior officials allegedly manipulated internal systems, including overtime reports, to shield abusers and punish victims, further institutionalizing a culture of harassment and retaliation.

A Call for Accountability and Justice

Lieutenant Epps’s filing represents more than a personal quest for justice; it is a call to action to address the systemic culture of harassment, abuse, and retaliation within the NYPD. The case underscores the urgent need for structural reforms to ensure transparency, accountability, and protection for victims of workplace misconduct.

Attorney Eric Sanders added:
“Lieutenant Epps’s courage in coming forward sheds light on the pervasive culture of exploitation and retaliation within the NYPD. This is not just about holding one individual accountable; it’s about dismantling a system that allows abuse to thrive unchecked.”

Broader Implications for the NYPD and City Leadership

The allegations against Chief Maddrey have far-reaching implications for the leadership of the NYPD and the City of New York. Despite his alleged history of predatory behavior, the decision to promote Maddrey raises concerns about the department’s vetting processes and its commitment to ensuring a safe and equitable workplace for all employees.

Lieutenant Epps’s case shines a spotlight on the need for systemic change, not just within the NYPD but across all institutions that have historically failed to protect employees from abuse. This case challenges city leadership to take decisive action to rebuild trust and ensure accountability at every level of the department.

Next Steps

The filing with the EEOC marks the beginning of a legal process that aims to hold Chief Maddrey and the NYPD accountable for their actions. Through ¸ŁŔűĽ§., Lieutenant Epps intends to pursue every avenue to seek justice, ensure her voice is heard, and advocate for meaningful reforms to protect future victims from similar harm.

Call to Action

Epps’s case has brought national attention to the issue of gender discrimination in law enforcement. Her charge challenges the status quo and seeks to create a safer, more equitable work environment for all officers. The legal proceedings in this case will be closely watched, as they have the potential to influence how similar cases are handled across the state and beyond.

For more information on this case and its developments, visit ¸ŁŔűĽ§., or follow us on ,Ěý, andĚý.

Contact Information

¸ŁŔűĽ§.
30 Wall Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Phone: 212-652-2782

###

EEOC Charge of Discrimination

The post Quid Pro Quo Allegations Shake NYPD Leadership Under Maddrey first appeared on ¸ŁŔűĽ§..

For Immediate Release

New York, NY, September 16, 2024 – The charge filed by Lieutenant Joel Ramirez alleges that senior NYPD officials, including Chief of Detectives Joseph Kenny, protected white officers involved in serious misconduct while unfairly targeting Ramirez, a Hispanic officer, for challenging corruption. According to the allegations in the charge, Ramirez was retaliated against and subjected to discrimination after challenging the NYPD’s cover-up of misconduct at the 2022 Electric Zoo Festival, where officers under his supervision were implicated in stealing champagne and consuming alcohol. Ramirez contends that he also faced a questionable AWOL investigation regarding undercover officer UC 351, which he believes was an effort to discredit him for reporting the misconduct.

Ramirez, who has maintained an exemplary record throughout his career, was repeatedly passed over for promotion to Captain, which he asserts was direct retaliation for his refusal to remain silent about the misconduct and the subsequent cover-up. The charge claims that the NYPD’s actions reveal a pattern of selective enforcement, racial bias, and systemic retaliation against officers of color who challenge wrongdoing within the department. According to Ramirez, the NYPD leadership fosters a culture that punishes whistleblowers while protecting those with internal political connections, further exacerbating disparities within the force.

The EEOC Charge: Legal Basis

Ramirez’s EEOC charge includes allegations under several legal statutes, including:

• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.
• The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law.
• New York State Executive Law § 296 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, national origin, and other protected classes.
• New York Labor Law § 215 protects employees from retaliation for reporting workplace misconduct.
• New York Labor Law § 740 provides whistleblower protection for employees reporting substantial public health or safety dangers.
• New York City Administrative Code § 8-107 prohibits discrimination and retaliation based on protected characteristics such as race and national origin.

The Electric Zoo Investigation and Cover-Up

The charge details a troubling series of events during the 2022 Electric Zoo Festival on Randall’s Island, highlighting what Ramirez claims to be internal NYPD misconduct, mishandling of evidence, and a concerted cover-up by senior officers. According to the charge, Ramirez, tasked with overseeing narcotics enforcement, was primarily supervising the Prisoner Van (P-Van) to prevent potential misconduct, a responsibility influenced by the infamous Chambers incident. Despite his diligent supervision, detectives and sergeants under his indirect supervision engaged in illegal activities that were later concealed by senior management.

Timeline of Events – Friday, September 2, 2022

At 12:30 p.m., Ramirez led a pre-tactical meeting with his Narcotics Borough Manhattan North (NBMN) teams in preparation for the undercover narcotics operations at the Electric Zoo Festival. His duties included managing two teams, each consisting of one sergeant and eight detectives, covering the 23rd and 32nd Precincts. Ramirez also took direct responsibility for supervising the P-Van, influenced by the 2017 Chambers incident, where two NYPD detectives were accused of raping a detainee. Ramirez’s commitment to preventing such misconduct guided his leadership decisions.

However, unbeknownst to him, detectives Jonathan Gonzalez, Warren Golden, and Wojciech Czech began consuming alcohol during the festival, an activity that Sergeants Robert Kelly and Sean Pittman, who were responsible for supervising the detectives, failed to stop.

The Events Leading to the Theft of Ace of Spades Champagne

The following day, Saturday, September 3, 2022, Ramirez began his tour at 1:00 p.m., focused on administrative duties, reviewing reports, and overseeing festival operations. At 2:30 p.m., Pittman informed Ramirez that detectives Gonzalez, Golden, and Czech would assist with law enforcement activities on Randall’s Island.

Later that evening, at around 7:15 p.m., security personnel at the VIP section of the festival detained detectives Gonzalez, Golden, and Czech for stealing two bottles of Ace of Spades champagne worth approximately $3,000. The bottles had been taken when the individuals who purchased them briefly left their table. Detective Gonzalez allegedly placed the bottles in a black backpack, intending to remove them from the VIP area. Detectives Golden and Czech were present but failed to intervene in the theft.

The incident was promptly reported to festival security, and the original champagne owners recovered the bottles from Gonzalez’s possession. At the time, Ramirez, who was handling other administrative supervisory duties, was unaware of the incident.

The Cover-Up by Senior Officers

Later that evening, Ramirez was informed of the theft and immediately reported the incident to his superiors, following department policy. However, senior officers intervened to shield the detectives involved instead of initiating a proper investigation. According to the charge, Deputy Inspector Christopher Henning and Inspector Peter Fiorillo, with the assistance of Deputy Inspector Daniel Campbell, played pivotal roles in covering up the misconduct. Campbell allegedly instructed the detectives to change out of their civilian clothes and leave the festival grounds before Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) investigators arrived.

Despite the serious nature of the theft and alcohol consumption, the detectives were not disciplined at the time. Although IAB was informed of the incident, the senior officers actively obstructed the investigation, protecting the detectives from immediate consequences. This action allowed them to avoid accountability.

The Cover-Up by Senior Officers

On Tuesday, September 6, 2022, Ramirez was summoned to Fiorillo’s office. Upon arriving, he found Fiorillo and Campbell on a conference call with Chief of Manhattan North Detectives Brian McGee. According to Ramirez’s allegations, he overheard McGee say, “Kenny [meaning Chief of Detectives Joseph Kenny] said, make sure Ramirez is the fall guy.” This statement, outlined in the EEOC charge, strongly suggests that NYPD leadership intended to scapegoat Ramirez for the misconduct while deflecting blame from the white detectives involved.

The Internal Affairs Investigation

Ramirez claims that the Internal Affairs Bureau’s investigation into the Electric Zoo Festival incident was riddled with inconsistencies and biased actions. According to the charge, the investigation against Ramirez was not supported by solid evidence but instead relied on conjecture.

Video footage and receipts clearly showed that detectives, including Gonzalez, Golden, and Czech, purchased and consumed alcohol during the event. This activity occurred in the presence of Sergeants Kelly, Pittman, and William Dooley but notably outside Ramirez’s supervision. The receipts and timeline established that no evidence suggested that Ramirez condoned or was even aware of their actions.

When Ramirez arrived at the scene later in the evening, detectives quickly removed the black bag containing the alcohol to hide it from him. Detective Czech, in particular, took steps to conceal the evidence. Despite these actions, Ramirez was charged with failing to supervise the officers and allegedly providing misleading statements about alcohol consumption. According to the EEOC charge, the evidence shows that Ramirez had no opportunity to witness the consumption of alcohol, as the detectives concealed the black bag immediately upon his arrival.

The investigation confirmed that Ramirez arrived at the scene around 7:34 p.m., by which time the alcohol had already been consumed. The detectives’ efforts to hide the evidence suggest that Ramirez did not know about their misconduct, making it unreasonable to hold him accountable for events before his arrival.

In addition, Ramirez was charged with making misleading statements regarding alcohol consumption. However, based on the receipts and video evidence, any statements Ramirez made denying knowledge of the alcohol were truthful. The detectives had hidden the alcohol before Ramirez had the chance to observe it, and his statements reflected his understanding of the situation. According to the EEOC charge, the Bureau’s conclusions were based more on assumptions than verifiable facts.

Furthermore, the investigation confirmed that Detective Gonzalez had stolen the two Ace of Spades champagne bottles. Charles Zhang, a witness at the festival, observed Gonzalez taking the bottles and later corroborated this in his testimony. Detective Czech assisted in moving the bottles, which were concealed in Gonzalez’s backpack. However, there was no evidence linking Ramirez to the theft, as it occurred outside his presence.

The AWOL Investigation Regarding UC 351

On September 20, 2022, Ramirez was informed of an investigation concerning the unauthorized absences of UC 351, an undercover officer whose leave had previously been approved by Inspector Fiorillo. UC 351 had been on authorized leave since July 8, 2022, yet Ramirez was falsely accused of failing to document the officer’s absences and supervise his return to duty. According to Ramirez’s charge, these accusations were part of a broader retaliation effort against him and UC 351.

Retaliatory Claims

Despite following department protocols for documenting UC 351’s five-week authorized leave, Ramirez was accused of failing to maintain accurate records. The EEOC charge alleges that the accusations were unfounded, as Inspector Fiorillo had approved the leave. Ramirez claims that this investigation was spearheaded by Deputy Inspector John Wilson and Chief Brian McGee, both of whom sought to discredit Ramirez’s leadership.

According to the charge, the AWOL investigation was retaliatory, launched after UC 351 reported the detectives’ misconduct at the Electric Zoo Festival to IAB. Ramirez contends that UC 351 learned of the misconduct through a WhatsApp group chat and sent an email detailing the events to IAB. The investigation into UC 351’s absences appeared to be part of an effort to undermine both UC 351 and Ramirez’s credibility.

On September 20, 2022, Ramirez was formally informed that the AWOL investigation had escalated, signaling that the accusations against him were being pursued despite his adherence to department policies.

Departmental Retaliation

Following the Electric Zoo incident, Ramirez faced swift retaliation from senior NYPD officers. He was reassigned from Module Lieutenant to Administrative Lieutenant, stripped of responsibilities, and barred from earning overtime. In stark contrast, detectives Gonzalez, Golden, Czech, and Detective Nicholas Katehis faced no significant consequences for their misconduct. According to the EEOC charge, Ramirez faced unfounded Charges and Specifications, accusing him of supervisory failures. This deflected blame from the true offenders, including Sergeants Kelly and Pittman, and senior officers like Campbell and Fiorillo.

Additionally, Wilson and McGee worked to isolate Ramirez within the department and damage his reputation while the detectives involved in the misconduct continued to serve without repercussions. The EEOC charge alleges that these actions were calculated to protect those with internal connections to NYPD leadership while punishing Ramirez for challenging corruption.

The Department Trial and Disciplinary Findings

The allegations against Ramirez, as outlined in the EEOC charge, were based on speculation rather than direct, substantiated evidence. No credible testimony or evidence demonstrated that Ramirez witnessed any of his subordinates consuming alcohol or displaying signs of intoxication. Testimonies from multiple individuals dismantled the department’s case, highlighting the reliance on assumptions rather than facts.

Inconsistent Application of Reasonableness

According to Ramirez’s EEOC charge, the Electric Zoo case is fundamentally inconsistent with the related AWOL case. In the AWOL case, Ramirez was found not guilty because he reasonably relied on department records, such as roll call sheets, to track personnel. The tribunal rightly concluded that Ramirez was entitled to rely on these official records and could not be held responsible for discrepancies beyond his control.

However, in the Electric Zoo case, Ramirez was not afforded the same reasonable reliance standard. The report claimed that Ramirez “should have known” his team members were consuming alcohol despite no direct evidence supporting this claim. Testimonies from Police Officer Victor Nunez and Detective Gary Perez confirmed that no alcohol was consumed in Ramirez’s presence, and no one informed him of the drinking.

According to the EEOC charge, this selective application of reasonableness shows that Ramirez was unfairly held to an unreasonable standard in the Electric Zoo case, reflecting bias in the department’s disciplinary process.

Testimonies that Disprove Assumptions of Guilt

1. Lieutenant Shaun Tanner’s Testimony: Tanner’s statements emphasized the speculative nature of the charges. He provided no direct evidence that Ramirez was aware of alcohol consumption, relying instead on assumptions with no factual basis.
2. Police Officer Victor Nunez’s Testimony: Nunez’s testimony was key in refuting the department’s claims. He stated that alcohol was never poured in Ramirez’s presence, and there were no visible signs of intoxication. This directly contradicts the assumption that Ramirez “should have known” about the alcohol.
3. Detective Gary Perez’s Testimony: Perez admitted to drinking but confirmed that neither Ramirez nor any other supervisor was informed. His testimony highlights that the alcohol consumption was hidden from Ramirez, further invalidating the notion that Ramirez should have been aware.
4. Sergeant Gairy James’s Testimony: James emphasized the importance of relying on observable facts—such as slurred speech or the smell of alcohol—to determine intoxication. No such signs were present, making the assumptions against Ramirez even more speculative.

Misapplication of the Derek Miller Precedent

The charges against Ramirez ignored the precedent set in Police Department City of New York v. Derek Miller, which established that intoxication cannot be presumed without clear, observable signs like slurred speech or the smell of alcohol. In Ramirez’s case, none of these indicators were present, yet the recommendation relied on the speculative assertion that he “should have known” about the alcohol consumption. This failure to apply the established legal standard from the Miller case is a critical misstep, further demonstrating the unjust nature of the disciplinary action against Ramirez.

Consistency with the 2019 Panel Report’s Concerns

The report’s flaws and recommendations against Ramirez mirror the concerns raised in the 2019 Panel Report on NYPD disciplinary practices. The Panel warned about the dangers of inconsistent standards, reliance on assumptions, and decisions not grounded in evidence. Ramirez’s case exemplifies these systemic issues.

The 2019 Panel Report criticized the NYPD for making decisions based on speculative reasoning rather than observable facts, and Ramirez’s case is a textbook example. The findings against him are based on the assumption that he “should have known” about the alcohol consumption, which is insufficient to justify disciplinary action. This selective application of standards highlights the need for reforms in the NYPD’s disciplinary processes to ensure fairness and transparency, as the 2019 Panel Report recommends.

Passed Over for Promotion to Captain in Retaliation

Despite Ramirez’s qualifications, including his score of 88.44 on the Promotion to Captain Examination and placement on the promotion list (List No. 56.5), he was passed over for promotion more than fifteen times following the Electric Zoo incident. The New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS) established a 244-name list for promotion to Captain on December 21, 2022, yet Ramirez was repeatedly denied promotion.

According to the EEOC charge, this failure to promote Ramirez was discriminatory and retaliatory, stemming from his challenge to senior management for covering up the misconduct at Electric Zoo. Ramirez contends that white officers, particularly those affiliated with the NYPD Gaelic Football Club, were protected while he faced systemic discrimination and retaliation.

About ¸ŁŔűĽ§.

Lieutenant Joel Ramirez is represented by ¸ŁŔűĽ§., a leading civil rights law firm based in New York City. Led by Eric Sanders, the firm is committed to fighting for victims of discrimination, retaliation, and civil rights violations. The Sanders Firm is dedicated to holding the NYPD accountable and seeking justice for Ramirez.

For media inquiries, contact: Eric Sanders, Esq. ¸ŁŔűĽ§. Phone: (212) 652-2782

###

The post NYPD Scandal: Whistleblower Alleges Corruption and High-Level Retaliation at Electric Zoo Festival first appeared on ¸ŁŔűĽ§..