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 ¸£Àû¼§., 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.�

´¡²ú´Ç³Ü³ÙÌý¸£Àû¼§.

Fighting for Justice and Reform to Promote Equal Opportunity

Led by Eric Sanders, Esq.,Ìý¸£Àû¼§. 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, 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,Ìý¸£Àû¼§.
30 Wall Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Phone: (212) 652-2782

###

Read the Verified Answer With Counterclaims 

The post “You and I Don’t Have a Relationship—Your P***y and I Doâ€�: Explosive Sexual Misconduct Allegations Rock NYPD first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..

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 ¸£Àû¼§., 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 ¸£Àû¼§., 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 ¸£Àû¼§., or follow us on ,Ìý, and .

Contact Information

¸£Àû¼§.
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 ¸£Àû¼§..

Fox Corporation is currently embroiled in a significant lawsuit following the alleged retaliatory termination of a security director, Jared Rasmussen, who reported a sexual assault incident involving his colleague, Ms. Jane Doe. This case highlights crucial issues surrounding whistleblower protections, employer retaliation, and corporate accountability in handling workplace misconduct. This legal commentary delves into the specifics of the lawsuit, the relevant legal frameworks, and the broader implications for workplace rights.

Background of the Case

On July 23, 2024, the reported that and several other entities and individuals were being sued by former employees Jared Rasmussen and Ms. Jane Doe. The lawsuit claims that Rasmussen was terminated after reporting that his colleague, Doe, was sexually assaulted by her supervisor, Veantea Burnside, who Fox and other associated companies employed.

Ms. Doe and Mr. Rasmussen allege that Burnside not only sexually assaulted Doe but also subjected her to continuous harassment and discrimination based on her race, sex, and sexual orientation. Upon reporting these incidents, the complaint details that both Doe and Rasmussen faced severe retaliatory actions, including harassment, demotion, and eventual termination.

Whistleblower Protections

Whistleblower protections are vital for safeguarding employees who report illegal or unethical behavior within their organizations. These protections are enshrined in federal and state laws, ensuring employees can report misconduct without fear of retaliation. The , for example, protects employees of publicly traded companies who report fraud or other violations of securities laws.

In the case of Fox Corp, Rasmussen’s report of the sexual assault and the subsequent retaliatory actions against him and Doe should fall under the purview of whistleblower protections. If the allegations are proven true, Fox Corp’s actions could significantly violate these protections, leading to potential legal repercussions.

Employer Retaliation

Employer retaliation occurs when an employer takes adverse action against an employee for engaging in legally protected activities, such as reporting harassment or discrimination. Retaliation can include termination, demotion, or other adverse employment actions.

The lawsuit alleges that the termination of Rasmussen and the demotion and harassment of Doe were direct responses to their reports of sexual assault and harassment. If the court finds that these actions were indeed retaliatory, Fox Corp and other defendants could face significant legal consequences, including damages for wrongful termination and possibly punitive damages.

Corporate Responsibility

Corporations are legally and ethically obligated to maintain a safe and respectful workplace. This includes taking reports of sexual harassment and assault seriously and ensuring that such reports are investigated thoroughly and fairly. Retaliation against employees who report misconduct undermines this responsibility and exposes the company to legal liability.

Recent years have seen increasing scrutiny on how corporations handle allegations of sexual harassment and assault. High-profile cases have highlighted the importance of corporate accountability and the need for robust policies and procedures to protect employees.

Fox Corp’s handling of the reported sexual assault and the subsequent termination of Rasmussen and harassment of Doe will be closely examined in the lawsuit. The outcome could set a precedent for how similar cases are handled and underscore the importance of corporate responsibility in maintaining safe workplaces.

Implications for Workplace Rights

The lawsuit against Fox Corp underscores the importance of protecting employees who come forward with reports of misconduct. It also highlights the need for employers to create an environment where employees feel safe reporting issues without fear of retaliation.

This case serves as a reminder of the legal protections available to employees and the importance of knowing their rights. For employers, it is a stark reminder of the potential consequences of failing to address misconduct reports appropriately.

Employees who report misconduct, such as sexual harassment or assault, should be aware of their rights under whistleblower protection laws. These laws are designed to ensure employees can report issues without fear of retaliation. Employers must diligently respond to such reports, conduct thorough investigations, and take appropriate action to address the reported misconduct.

Legal Framework and Protections

Various federal and state laws establish the legal framework for whistleblower protections. Key legislation includes the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which protects employees of publicly traded companies who report fraud or other violations of securities laws. Additionally, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration () enforces whistleblower protections for employees who report violations of workplace safety regulations.

Under these laws, employers are prohibited from retaliating against employees who engage in protected activities, such as reporting misconduct. can include termination, demotion, or other adverse employment actions. Employees who believe they have been retaliated against for reporting misconduct can file a complaint with the appropriate regulatory agency or pursue legal action against their employer.

In the case of Fox Corp, the security director’s report of sexual assault and the subsequent termination would fall under the scope of whistleblower protections. If the allegations are proven true, Fox Corp’s actions could be seen as violating these protections, leading to potential legal repercussions.

Detailed Allegations and Facts from the Complaint

Ms. Jane Doe’s Experience:

• Employment History: Ms. Doe was employed by Fox Corporation and its associated entities, providing safety and security services at various events. Despite excelling in her role, she faced continuous harassment and discrimination from her supervisor, Veantea Burnside.
• Sexual Assault: On multiple occasions, Burnside allegedly sexually assaulted Ms. Doe, including a forcible assault in May 2021 during a NASCAR event in Delaware and another in May 2022 while working for the USFL in Alabama.
• Harassment: Burnside’s harassment included demeaning comments about Doe’s race, sex, and sexual orientation. He mocked her abilities, threatened her job security, and outed her as LGBTQ to colleagues.
• Retaliation: After Doe reported the assaults, she faced severe reprisals. Burnside and other supervisors demoted her, excluded her from meetings, and eventually terminated her employment.

Jared Rasmussen’s Experience:

• Employment History: Rasmussen worked for Fox Corporation for nearly six years, with an excellent reputation and was in line for a promotion.
• Reporting Assault: Upon learning of Burnside’s assault on Doe, Rasmussen reported it to his supervisors and Fox Human Resources. Despite his diligence, Rasmussen faced retaliatory harassment and was eventually terminated.
• Retaliatory Actions: Rasmussen’s reports were met with hostility. Supervisors, including Mr. Ganny, Ms. Druker, and Ms. Williams, engaged in actions that led to his suspension and termination.

Conclusion

The lawsuit against Fox Corp for the alleged retaliatory termination of a security director who reported sexual assault raises significant legal and ethical issues. It underscores the importance of whistleblower protections, the prohibition of employer retaliation, and the need for corporate responsibility in maintaining a safe workplace. As this case progresses, its implications on workplace rights and corporate accountability will be closely watched.

For more insights and legal advice on workplace rights and protections, visit ¸£Àû¼§., and explore our extensive resources on whistleblower protections, employment law, and more.

The post Legal Commentary: Fox Corp Sued for Alleged Retaliation Against Security Director Reporting Sexual Assault first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..

Early Beginnings: Pre-1960s

Before the 1960s, there were few legal protections against sexual harassment in the workplace. Women, who were predominantly affected, often faced harassment with little to no recourse. Social norms and gender roles of the time contributed to a culture where such behavior was tolerated or overlooked. The absence of formal legal frameworks meant that victims had limited avenues for reporting or seeking justice.

The Civil Rights Movement and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

The 1960s marked a turning point in the fight against workplace discrimination, including sexual harassment. The Civil Rights Movement brought issues of equality and justice to the forefront, leading to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII of this Act was particularly significant as it prohibited employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Title VII provided the foundation for addressing sexual harassment, although it did not explicitly mention it. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission () was established on July 2, 1965, one year after Title VII became law. The EEOC had a budget of $2.25 million and approximately 100 employees to enforce Title VII. EEOC began to recognize sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination in the 1970s. This recognition was pivotal in shaping future legal interpretations and protections.

The 1970s and 1980s: Landmark Cases and Legal Recognition

The 1970s and 1980s saw several landmark cases that helped define and establish legal precedents.

Barnes v. Train (1974)

This case is commonly viewed as the first sexual harassment case in America, even though the term “sexual harassment” was not used. An African American woman, Paulette Barnes, was a payroll clerk who worked for the United States Environmental Protection Agency. She filed the case after losing her job for refusing the advances of a male supervisor. The case was dismissed, but it was appealed in Barnes v Costle (1977).

In the case of Barnes v. Costle, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit they have overturned the original findings, ruling that it was sex discrimination for a woman to experience tangible employment losses, such as job termination, for refusing to comply with sexual favors. This ruling was influenced by the Williams v. Saxbe (1976) decision by a U.S. District Court, which established that quid pro quo sexual harassment constitutes sex discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court also determined that companies are liable if they fail to stop sexual harassment when they are aware that supervisors are conducting it. As a result of Barnes v. Costle, Barnes was awarded approximately $18,000 in back pay and compensation for lost promotions.

Williams v. Saxbe (1976)

In this case, Diane Williams sued the Department of Justice, claiming a supervisor sexually harassed her. The court ruled in favor of Williams, marking one of the first instances where sexual harassment was recognized as a violation of Title VII. This case set an important precedent, acknowledging that sexual harassment constituted sex discrimination.

Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986)

This landmark Supreme Court case was a significant breakthrough. Mechelle Vinson claimed she was sexually harassed by her supervisor, Sidney Taylor, at Meritor Savings Bank. The Supreme Court ruled that a hostile work environment created by sexual harassment is a violation of Title VII. The ruling emphasized that employers could be held liable for harassment by supervisors, even if the employer was unaware of the behavior.

The 1990s: Expanding Definitions and Protections

The 1990s saw further expansion of legal protections against sexual harassment, with more cases and legislative actions reinforcing the principles established in the 1980s.

Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. (1993)

In this case, Teresa Harris sued Forklift Systems, Inc., claiming that her employer’s conduct created a hostile work environment. The Supreme Court ruled that the existence of a hostile work environment did not require proof of psychological harm. Instead, the focus was on whether a reasonable person perceived the environment as hostile or abusive. This ruling broadened the scope of what could be considered sexual harassment.

The Civil Rights Act of 1991

The Civil Rights Act of 1991 strengthened protections under Title VII by allowing victims of discrimination, including sexual harassment, to seek compensatory and punitive damages. This act provided a stronger deterrent against harassment and more significant incentives for employers to maintain harassment-free workplaces.

The 2000s: Policy Development and Increased Awareness

Increased awareness of sexual harassment increased in the early 2000s, with organizations implementing policies and training programs to prevent it. The EEOC issued guidelines emphasizing employers’ responsibilities to prevent and address harassment.

Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998) and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth (1998)

These two Supreme Court cases further clarified employer liability for sexual harassment. In both cases, the Court ruled that employers could be held vicariously liable for harassment by supervisors unless they could prove that they exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct harassment and that the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventive or corrective opportunities.

The #MeToo Movement and Modern Era

The #MeToo movement, which gained momentum in 2017, brought unprecedented attention to the issue of sexual harassment. High-profile cases and widespread social media engagement led to a cultural shift, encouraging more victims to come forward and demand accountability.

Legislative Responses

In response to the #MeToo movement, several states enacted laws to strengthen protections against sexual harassment. For example, California passed legislation requiring sexual harassment training for all employees and extending the statute of limitations for harassment claims. New York implemented similar measures, including mandatory training and stricter anti-harassment policies.

Ongoing Challenges and Future Directions

Despite significant progress, challenges remain in addressing workplace sexual harassment. Some of these challenges include:

Intersectionality

Sexual harassment often with other forms of discrimination, such as race, gender identity, and sexual orientation. Addressing these multiple layers of discrimination requires a comprehensive approach that considers the unique experiences of different groups.

Remote Work

The rise of remote work due to the COVID-19 pandemic has introduced new dynamics in workplace harassment. Virtual environments can create opportunities for harassment through digital communication platforms. Employers must adopt policies and training to address these new challenges.

Global Perspectives

Sexual harassment laws vary widely across different countries. While some nations have robust legal frameworks, others lack adequate protections. Global organizations face the challenge of implementing consistent anti-harassment policies that comply with diverse legal standards.

Conclusion

The evolution of sexual harassment laws in the workplace reflects a broader societal commitment to equality and justice. From the early recognition of sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination to the cultural shift sparked by the #MeToo movement, significant strides have been made in protecting employees from harassment. However, ongoing challenges require continued vigilance and innovation. By fostering inclusive workplaces and robust legal protections, we can work towards a future where all employees are safe, respected, and valued.

References and Further Reading

• ¸£Àû¼§. Blog

The post How Sexual Harassment Laws Have Evolved For 40 Years first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..

What is Sexual Harassment?

Sexual harassment includes a wide range of behaviors, such as:

• Unwelcome sexual advances
• Requests for sexual favors
• Inappropriate comments or jokes of a sexual nature
• Physical conduct of a sexual nature
• Display of sexually explicit materials

These behaviors create a hostile and intimidating environment, making it difficult for victims to work or study.

Legal Protections

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from discrimination based on sex, which includes . This federal law covers both quid pro quo harassment (where job benefits are conditioned on sexual favors) and hostile work environment harassment (where the conduct creates an intimidating or offensive work environment). Employers are required to take complaints seriously and address them promptly.

New York State Executive Law 296

New York State Executive Law 296, also known as the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), expands protections against discrimination and harassment in the workplace. This law prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on sex and requires employers to take appropriate action to prevent and address harassment. The law covers a broader range of employers, including those with fewer than 15 employees, which is more inclusive than Title VII.

New York City Administrative Code 8-107

New York City Administrative Code 8-107, also known as the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), provides additional protections against discrimination and harassment within the city. This law includes specific provisions for addressing sexual harassment and mandates that employers implement anti-harassment policies and provide training to employees. The NYCHRL is one of the most comprehensive anti-discrimination laws in the country.

Protection from Retaliation

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Under Title VII, employees are protected from retaliation by their employers when they report harassment. Retaliation can include demotion, termination, or any adverse action against the employee. The law ensures employees can report harassment without fear of losing their jobs or facing other negative consequences.

New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL): The NYSHRL provides robust protection against retaliation, prohibiting any adverse action taken by employers against employees who report harassment. This includes actions such as demotion, termination, or intimidation. The law aims to ensure that employees feel safe and supported when reporting incidents of harassment.

New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL): The NYCHRL offers broader protections against retaliation than federal and state laws. It covers a more comprehensive range of retaliatory actions, including any conduct that might dissuade a reasonable person from making or supporting a harassment claim. This comprehensive protection encourages more employees to come forward and report harassment, knowing they are protected from any form of employer retaliation.

Differences in Legal Standards

Scope of Coverage

• Title VII: Applies to employers with 15 or more employees.
• New York State Executive Law 296: Applies to employers with four or more employees and, in sexual harassment cases, to all employers regardless of size.
• New York City Administrative Code 8-107 Applies to employers who have employed four or more people within the past year or at least one domestic worker for any period. People count as “employeesâ€� whether they are full-time or part-time, permanent or temporary, interns or paid workers, regardless of how they are paid.

Reporting and Training Requirements

• Title VII: Does not mandate specific training requirements.
• New York State Executive Law 296: Requires annual sexual harassment prevention training for all employees.
• New York City Administrative Code 8-107: Requires employers to take specific measures to prevent harassment, including annual anti-harassment training.

Statute of Limitations

• Title VII: 300 days to file a charge with the EEOC.
• New York State Executive Law 296: Three years to file a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights.
• New York City Administrative Code 8-107: Three years to file a complaint with the New York City Commission on Human Rights.

Steps to Protect Yourself

1. Review Employer Procedures: Familiarize yourself with your company’s harassment policies. Most employers have a written policy that outlines the steps for reporting harassment and the procedures for handling complaints.
2. Document Incidents: Keep a detailed record of all harassment incidents, including dates, times, locations, and any witnesses. Documentation is crucial for building a case and providing evidence to support your claims.
3. Consult an Attorney: Seek legal advice to understand your rights and options. ¸£Àû¼§. provides valuable resources and legal support for victims of sexual harassment.
4. Self-Care: Reach out for support and prioritize your mental and emotional health. Speaking with a counselor or therapist can help you cope with the stress and trauma of harassment.

Filing a Complaint

If you need to file a complaint, you can contact several organizations:

• New York City Commission on Human Rights (NYCCHR): Handles complaints of discrimination and harassment in New York City.
• New York State Division of Human Rights (NYSDHR): Investigates and resolves complaints of discrimination and harassment in New York State.
• United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC): Enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including sexual harassment.

Filing a complaint with these organizations initiates an investigation into the allegations and can result in remedies such as compensation, policy changes, and disciplinary actions against the harasser.

Mandatory Employer Training Requirements

New York State

New York State employers must provide annual sexual harassment prevention training to all employees. This training must meet the minimum standards set by the state, which include:

• An explanation of sexual harassment consistent with guidance issued by the Department of Labor in consultation with the Division of Human Rights
• Examples of conduct that would constitute unlawful sexual harassment
• Information concerning the federal and state statutory provisions concerning sexual harassment and remedies available to victims
• Information concerning employees’ rights of redress and all available forums for adjudicating complaints
• Information addressing conduct by supervisors and any additional responsibilities for such supervisors

New York City

New York City has additional requirements for employer training. Employers must:

• Provide annual anti-harassment training to all employees
• Ensure that the training covers the employer’s internal complaint process
• Include an explanation of sexual harassment as a form of unlawful discrimination under local, state, and federal law
• Provide bystander intervention training to encourage employees to speak out against and report instances of harassment

Statistics on Sexual Harassment

• • Workplace Statistics: According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), 78.2 percent of sexual harassment charges filed between 2018 and 2021 were from women, while men filed 21.8 percent.
  • Reporting Rates: Less than one-third of individuals who experience sexual harassment at work report it to a supervisor, manager, or union representative. Furthermore, only 6-13 percent of these individuals file a formal complaint regarding the harassment (EEOC).
  • Legal Outcomes: A report by the analyzed 46,210 Title VII sexual harassment charges filed between 2012 and 2016 with the EEOC and state Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPAs). It also reviewed the EEOC’s handling of 33,304 Title VII charges filed solely with the EEOC. The findings indicate that while the EEOC initially views sexual harassment charges as more likely to have legal merit compared to other discrimination complaints, most individuals gain little from the EEOC’s processing. Specifically, 27% of employees who file a sexual harassment charge with the EEOC and pursue redress receive any benefit. Approximately 23% receive some monetary compensation, with an average of $24,700 and a median award of $10,000. Less than 1% of awards exceed $100,000. Only 12% of charges lead to managerial agreements to change workplace practices.

These statistics highlight victims’ challenges in obtaining meaningful redress through the EEOC process.

Resources and Support

For more detailed information and resources, visit the (, New York State Division of Human Rights (), or the New York City Commission on Human Rights (). Additional support is available from:

• National Organization for Women – New York City (): 1-212-627-9895
• Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (): 1-800-656-HOPE
• Safe Horizon () 1–800-621-HOPE
• ¸£Àû¼§.: Legal Resources and Support

Taking proactive steps to protect yourself and knowing your rights can make a significant difference in addressing sexual harassment. Whether you are experiencing harassment or supporting someone who is, understanding the available resources and legal protections is essential.

Related Articles from ¸£Àû¼§.

• The Hidden Truth: Underreporting Sexual Harassment in the Workplace
• The Hidden Epidemic: Why Sexual Harassment Is Underreported in the Workplace

By understanding your rights and the legal protections available, you can take proactive steps to safeguard yourself and your workplace from sexual harassment. Empower yourself with knowledge and support to navigate and address harassment effectively.

The post Sexual Harassment: What is it and how can we stop it? first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..

The Supreme Court followed Congress’s intent when enacting Title VII, emphasizing broad protections against workplace discrimination and retaliation. The ruling allows employees to challenge a more comprehensive range of discriminatory practices, including more subtle employment decisions that affect their careers and working conditions. This comprehensive analysis of the Muldrow decision delves into its legal implications, explores federal, state, and local laws, and provides actionable guidance for employees and employers navigating the post-Muldrow landscape.

I. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act: Legislative Intent and Broad Protections

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. This federal law covers various employment practices, including hiring, firing, promotions, and conditions of employment. Title VII also includes robust anti-retaliation provisions, making it illegal for employers to retaliate against employees who oppose discrimination or participate in legal actions or investigations regarding discriminatory practices.

A. Congress’s Intent: Comprehensive Workplace Protections

When Congress passed Title VII, it aimed to provide employees with broad protections against overt and subtle forms of discrimination. The law’s inclusion of the phrase “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” was crucial to this goal. Congress recognized that discrimination does not always take the form of explicit actions like terminations or refusals to hire; it can manifest subtly, such as changes in job assignments, work conditions, or access to career development opportunities.

This language was designed to address the reality that discriminatory practices often harm employees in non-tangible ways that, while not directly tied to salary or rank, can impede their professional growth, diminish their standing in the workplace, and limit future advancement. For example, an employee may be reassigned to a less desirable position, excluded from leadership roles, or denied opportunities for professional development. While these actions may not result in immediate financial harm, they can have long-lasting effects on an employee’s career trajectory.

Congress sought to create a comprehensive framework to prevent workplace inequality by ensuring that Title VII addresses economic and non-economic discrimination forms.

B. Retaliation Protections Under Title VII

Title VII prohibits discrimination and includes protections against employer . Employees are protected from retaliation if they report discrimination, file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), or participate in a related investigation or legal action. These protections are essential to maintaining a workplace where employees feel secure exercising their rights without fear of reprisal.

However, before Muldrow, courts often applied a narrow interpretation of what constitutes an adverse employment action in retaliation claims. Many courts required plaintiffs to show that they had experienced tangible harm, such as a pay cut, demotion, or termination, to succeed in their claims. This restrictive standard limited the ability of employees to challenge more subtle forms of retaliation, such as job transfers or changes in work responsibilities, that might not immediately impact their income but could nonetheless undermine their career prospects.

II. The Muldrow Case: Facts and Legal Proceedings

Sergeant Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow, a highly regarded officer in the St. Louis Police Department, filed a lawsuit against the City of St. Louis, alleging gender discrimination after being transferred from the prestigious Intelligence Division to a less desirable patrol position. In the Intelligence Division, Muldrow supervised high-profile investigations involving organized crime, public corruption, and human trafficking. Her work had earned her significant professional perks, including FBI deputization, access to federal resources, and an unmarked take-home vehicle.

Muldrow’s role in the Intelligence Division was critical to her career development, providing her with leadership and professional advancement opportunities. However, when Captain Michael Deeba took over command of the Intelligence Division in 2017, he requested that a male officer replace Muldrow due to the “dangerous” nature of the work. Despite objections from Muldrow and her previous commander, who praised her as one of the most reliable sergeants in the unit, her transfer was approved.

While Muldrow’s pay and rank remained unchanged, her new position in the Fifth District Patrol involved significantly fewer responsibilities. She was tasked with managing patrol officers, handling administrative duties, and working rotating shifts, including weekends. Her new position deprived her of the FBI deputization, the take-home vehicle, and the high-level responsibilities she had previously enjoyed.

Muldrow filed a lawsuit under Title VII, arguing that her transfer was motivated by gender discrimination and had effectively demoted her, even though her salary and rank were unaffected. She contended that the reassignment had materially altered the terms and conditions of her employment by limiting her professional opportunities and removing her from a prestigious role.

III. The Lower Court Rulings and the “Materially Significant Disadvantage” Standard

When the District Court heard Muldrow’s case, the judge ruled in favor of the City of St. Louis, granting summary judgment and dismissing her claims. The court applied the Eighth Circuit’s precedent, which required plaintiffs to show that they had suffered a “materially significant disadvantage” to prove an adverse employment action under Title VII. This standard focused on whether the employment action had resulted in tangible harm, such as a reduction in pay, demotion, or termination.

The District Court found that because Muldrow’s pay and rank remained the same, her transfer did not constitute an adverse employment action. The court characterized her job duties and work conditions as “minor alterations” that were not a material disadvantage.

Muldrow appealed the decision to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the District Court’s ruling. The appellate court reiterated that a plaintiff must demonstrate significant, tangible harm to establish an adverse employment action under Title VII. The court concluded that while Muldrow’s reassignment may have been less desirable, it did not meet the threshold for a discrimination claim because it did not involve a pay cut or demotion.

Muldrow’s legal team argued that this interpretation of Title VII was overly narrow and inconsistent with the statute’s language and legislative intent. They contended that Title VII was designed to protect employees from a broad range of discriminatory practices, not just those that result in economic harm.

IV. The Supreme Court’s Decision in Muldrow: Expanding the Definition of Adverse Employment Actions

In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ rulings and remanded the case for further proceedings. Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the majority that plaintiffs do not need to demonstrate a “materially significant disadvantage” or tangible harm to bring a successful claim under Title VII. The Court held that any discriminatory alteration of the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment is sufficient to establish an adverse employment action, regardless of whether the employee’s pay or rank was affected.

A. Broadening the Scope of Adverse Employment Actions

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Muldrow significantly broadened the scope of what constitutes an adverse employment action under Title VII. Justice Kagan explained that the language of Title VII prohibits discrimination “concerning compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” without requiring significant or tangible harm. Requiring plaintiffs to show that they suffered a materially significant disadvantage would impose an additional burden that Congress did not intend when it enacted the statute.

In her opinion, Justice Kagan emphasized that non-tangible harms—such as changes in job responsibilities, loss of perks, or shifts in work conditions—can profoundly impact an employee’s career and work environment. These changes, even if they do not result in an immediate financial loss, can materially affect an employee’s ability to succeed in their role or advance professionally.

The Court’s ruling ensures that employees are protected from discriminatory practices that may not directly affect their pay but undermine their professional standing or career growth. This expansion of Title VII’s protections is particularly important for employees in industries where career advancement opportunities, professional prestige, and access to leadership roles are critical to long-term success.

B. Congressional Intent and Title VII’s Purpose

The Muldrow decision is consistent with Congress’s original intent when passing Title VII. By including language prohibiting discrimination concerning the “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,” Congress sought to create a broad framework to protect employees from all forms of workplace discrimination, not just those that result in significant economic harm. The Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirms that discrimination can take many forms, including subtle changes in job duties or the removal of professional opportunities, and that these actions are just as harmful as more overt forms of discrimination like terminations or pay cuts.

By clarifying that non-tangible employment actions are actionable under Title VII, the Court ensures that employees who experience discriminatory treatment in these areas can seek legal recourse.

V. Broader Implications of the Muldrow Decision for Future Retaliation and Discrimination Claims

The Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow has far-reaching implications for employees and employers. It lowers the threshold for an adverse employment action and broadens the scope of protection under Title VII.

A. Lowering the Burden of Proof for Plaintiffs

Before the Muldrow decision, many employees faced a high bar when attempting to prove an adverse employment action in retaliation or discrimination cases. Courts often required plaintiffs to show they had suffered a “materially significant disadvantage”—typically defined as a pay cut, demotion, or termination—to succeed in their claims. This requirement made it difficult for employees to challenge more subtle forms of retaliation or discrimination, such as job-duty changes or loss of career advancement opportunities.

Post-Muldrow, employees are no longer required to meet this heightened threshold. Instead, they can bring claims based on any discriminatory action that alters their employment terms, conditions, or privileges, even if those changes do not result in an immediate financial loss. For instance, an employee reassigned to a less prestigious role or excluded from leadership opportunities may now have a stronger claim for discrimination or retaliation, even if their pay and rank remain the same.

This lowered burden of proof is likely to increase retaliation and discrimination claims, as employees who previously might not have been able to meet the “materially significant disadvantage” standard can now challenge a broader range of employment actions.

B. Expanding the Definition of Adverse Employment Actions

The Muldrow ruling broadens the definition of an adverse employment action under Title VII. Courts can now recognize non-tangible harms—such as changes in job responsibilities, exclusion from career-advancing projects, or loss of professional perks—as actionable under Title VII. This expanded interpretation is particularly relevant in industries like law enforcement, education, and healthcare, where career advancement opportunities may not always be reflected in pay or rank structures.

For example, a law enforcement employee transferred from a prestigious investigative unit to a less desirable patrol position may have a valid discrimination claim under Muldrow, even if their salary remains unchanged. Similarly, an academic excluded from key research projects or leadership roles may now be able to bring a retaliation claim, even if their pay and title remain the same.

C. Increased Litigation and Employer Liability

The Muldrow decision will likely increase retaliation and discrimination claims under Title VII, as more employees will be able to challenge employment actions that previously might not have been considered actionable. This could result in an uptick in litigation, particularly in cases where employees allege that they were retaliated against for opposing discriminatory practices or participating in investigations or legal proceedings.

For employers, this means an increased risk of liability and a greater need for vigilance in employment decisions. Employers must ensure that all job assignments, transfers, and changes in responsibilities are well-documented and based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. In light of the Muldrow decision, any employment action that alters an employee’s duties or work conditions could be grounds for a lawsuit if it is perceived as discriminatory or retaliatory.

VI. Legal Remedies Available Under Federal, State, and Local Laws

A. Filing a Charge with the EEOC

The EEOC is the primary federal agency responsible for enforcing anti-discrimination laws under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, along with other statutes like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The EEOC investigates claims of workplace discrimination and retaliation based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, and genetic information.

B. The Process of Filing with the EEOC

1. Timely Filing: One of the most critical steps is filing your within the required time frame. Generally, you have 180 days from the date of the discriminatory act to file a charge with the EEOC. However, in states with anti-discrimination laws, such as New York, this time limit may extend to 300 days if the charge is also filed with a state or local agency. Missing this deadline could result in losing your legal right to pursue a claim, so acting promptly is crucial.
2. Initial Consultation: Before formally filing a charge, you may want to have an initial consultation with the EEOC, either in person, by phone, or online. During this meeting, you’ll discuss the details of your case, including the specific discriminatory or retaliatory actions you’ve experienced. The EEOC staff will help determine whether your situation falls under its jurisdiction and advise you on how to proceed.
3. Filing the Charge: Once the EEOC confirms your valid claim, you can file a formal charge. The charge is a legal document that outlines the discrimination or retaliation you’ve faced, the timeline of events, and any supporting evidence you’ve gathered. It’s essential to include as much detail as possible, including any documentation, witness statements, emails, or other evidence that can corroborate your claims.
4. Investigation and Mediation: The EEOC will notify your employer and begin its investigation after receiving your charge. The agency may request further information, interview witnesses, or examine records related to the allegations. In some cases, the EEOC may suggest mediation to resolve the dispute before it escalates to litigation. Mediation is a voluntary process where parties meet with a neutral mediator to discuss potential settlements. It can often be a faster and less adversarial means of resolving workplace disputes.
5. Right to Sue Letter: If the EEOC’s investigation finds sufficient evidence of discrimination or retaliation, the agency may attempt to negotiate a settlement with your employer. However, the EEOC will issue you a “right to sue” letter if no resolution is reached. This letter allows you to file a lawsuit in federal court, seeking remedies such as back pay, reinstatement, or compensatory and punitive damages. If the EEOC dismisses the charge or does not act within a specific time frame (usually 180 days), you can still request a right-to-sue letter to pursue your claim independently.

C. Why File with the EEOC?

Filing with the EEOC provides several potential advantages. First, it’s a necessary step if you plan to bring a discrimination or retaliation lawsuit under federal laws like Title VII or the ADA. Additionally, an EEOC investigation can add credibility to your case, as the agency’s findings may bolster your claims in court. Even if you don’t pursue litigation, an EEOC investigation might lead to a resolution or settlement, allowing you to avoid a lengthy court battle. Finally, filing with the EEOC may provide you with leverage when negotiating with your employer, as the threat of an ongoing federal investigation can encourage employers to address the issue more seriously.

D. Filing with State or Local Human Rights Agencies (NYSDHR and NYCCHR)

In addition to the EEOC, employees in New York can also file discrimination and retaliation charges with state and local human rights agencies, such as the New York State Division of Human Rights (NYSDHR) or the New York City Commission on Human Rights (NYCCHR). These agencies provide an additional layer of protection, and their processes can often be more favorable to employees than the federal process.

E. Filing with the NYSDHR

The New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), codified as New York State Executive Law § 296, is one of the most expansive anti-discrimination laws in the United States, providing protections beyond those offered under federal law. The NYSDHR is responsible for enforcing the NYSHRL and investigating workplace discrimination and retaliation claims. Unlike Title VII, which applies to employers with 15 or more employees, the NYSHRL applies to employers with as few as four employees, making it a more inclusive option for workers in smaller businesses.

1. Jurisdiction and Timing: Similar to the EEOC, must be filed with the NYSDHR within one year of the discriminatory or retaliatory act. If a complaint is filed with the EEOC, the agencies typically work together under a “work-sharing” agreement, meaning a complaint filed with one agency is considered filed with both. This cooperation allows the agencies to avoid duplicating investigations and streamline the process.
2. The Investigation Process: After filing, the NYSDHR will investigate the claim by interviewing both parties, gathering evidence, and reviewing relevant documents. Investigations typically last up to 180 days. Following the investigation, the NYSDHR will issue a finding of “probable cause” or “no probable cause.” If the agency finds probable cause for discrimination or retaliation, it may schedule a public hearing where an administrative law judge will preside over the case.
3. Resolution and Remedies: If the NYSDHR determines that discrimination or retaliation occurred, the agency can order various remedies, including reinstatement, back pay, emotional distress damages, and attorney’s fees. The NYSHRL also allows for punitive damages in cases of willful misconduct. If either party disagrees with the outcome, they may appeal the decision in state court.

F. Filing with the NYCCHR

New York City employees can also file a claim with the New York City Commission on Human Rights (NYCCHR), which enforces the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), codified as New York City Administrative Code § 8-107. Like the NYSHRL, the NYCHRL provides broader protections than federal law and applies to employers with as few as four employees.

1. Broader Protections Under NYCHRL: The NYCHRL is one of the most protective anti-discrimination laws in the country. It offers a lower threshold for proving discrimination or retaliation and includes additional protected categories, such as gender identity and expression, marital status, and caregiver status. Employees who believe they’ve been discriminated against or retaliated against in New York City should consider filing with the NYCCHR to take advantage of these broader protections.
2. Filing a Complaint: must be filed with the NYCCHR within one year of the discriminatory or retaliatory act or three years for sexual harassment cases. The process mirrors the EEOC and NYSDHR: after filing, the NYCCHR will investigate the complaint, interview witnesses, and review documents. If the commission finds probable cause, the case will be heard before an administrative law judge.
3. Remedies Under the NYCHRL: The NYCCHR can order comprehensive remedies if it finds that discrimination or retaliation occurred. These remedies can include reinstatement, back pay, compensatory damages for emotional distress, and civil penalties of up to $250,000 in willful or malicious discrimination cases. Additionally, the NYCHRL permits punitive damages and allows employees to recover attorney’s fees.

G. Why File with State or Local Agencies?

State and local human rights agencies often provide broader protections and more favorable procedural rules than federal agencies like the EEOC. For instance, the NYSHRL and NYCHRL cover a more comprehensive range of employers, including small businesses with as few as four employees, making them a vital resource for workers in smaller companies. Additionally, the NYCHRL’s broader definitions of discrimination and retaliation give employees greater flexibility in proving their claims, and its remedies, including punitive damages, are more expansive.

Moreover, filing with a state or local agency can sometimes result in faster resolutions. While federal investigations can be lengthy, local agencies may have more specialized knowledge of state and city laws, leading to more efficient investigations and outcomes.

VII. What to Do If You Are Facing Workplace Discrimination or Retaliation

If you believe you are experiencing discrimination or retaliation in the workplace, it is essential to take immediate steps to protect your rights and build a strong case. Here are the steps you should take:

A. Document the Discriminatory or Retaliatory Behavior

Documenting discriminatory or retaliatory behavior is critical to building a solid case should you pursue legal action. Start by keeping detailed records of all relevant events, including dates, times, descriptions of the incidents, and the names of any witnesses present during these events. This level of specificity will be vital in establishing a timeline and demonstrating the pattern of behavior that may support your claims.

Collect and retain copies of all relevant emails, text messages, performance evaluations, or written correspondence that may provide evidence of discriminatory or retaliatory actions if possible. Be mindful to store these records securely, such as in a personal email account or cloud storage not accessible by your employer. Physical copies of critical documents should also be kept offsite, away from the workplace, to ensure you can access them if needed.

1. Legal Considerations for Recording Conversations and Other Communications

In some cases, recording conversations may help you further substantiate your discrimination or retaliation claims. However, the legality of recording people without their consent varies by jurisdiction. In the United States, each state has different laws regarding the recording of conversations:

• One-Party Consent States: Most U.S. states (including New York) follow the “one-party consent” rule, which means that you can legally record a conversation if at least one party involved in the conversation consents to the recording. If you are part of the conversation, you are the consenting party, making the recording lawful. In these states, you do not need to inform the other person or obtain their permission to record the conversation.
• Two-Party Consent States: A smaller number of states, such as California and Florida, require “two-party” or “all-party” consent, meaning that you must obtain the permission of all parties involved before legally recording a conversation. Suppose you record someone without their knowledge or consent in these states. In that case, the recording may be illegal, and using it as evidence in legal proceedings could expose you to criminal penalties or civil liability.

Before recording any conversations at work, you must familiarize yourself with the laws in your jurisdiction. If you are unsure whether recording a conversation is legal, consult an employment attorney. Additionally, be cautious when recording conversations in which sensitive information is shared, as privacy laws may apply.

2. Text Messages and Digital Communication

Text messages and other forms of digital communication, such as messaging apps or emails, can serve as critical evidence in cases of discrimination or retaliation. Permanently save these communications, as they can provide direct insight into the intent or behavior of individuals involved. Be sure to screenshot or export text message threads to ensure you have access to the complete conversation. Text messages may be beneficial in showing patterns of inappropriate conduct, discriminatory remarks, or retaliatory actions in response to complaints you may have filed.

However, when engaging in digital communication, be mindful of how you respond and what you disclose. Do not send retaliatory or aggressive messages regarding unfair treatment, as your communications may be scrutinized during legal proceedings. Always maintain professionalism in your responses and seek advice from legal counsel before disclosing sensitive or incriminating information.

B. Report the Issue to Human Resources

When you believe you have been subjected to discriminatory or retaliatory actions, consider formally disclosing the behavior to your employer, human resources department, or immediate supervisor. Ensure your disclosure is documented in writing—via email or a formal complaint letter—so that you have a record of the communication. Keep copies of these disclosures and note any follow-up actions your employer took.

If your employer has an internal reporting mechanism for complaints of discrimination, it may be beneficial to follow that process. Submitting a formal complaint through an internal system creates a paper trail and shows that you took the appropriate steps to notify your employer of the issue. This documentation can be critical if you later pursue legal action, demonstrating that the employer was aware of the alleged behavior.

By collecting detailed evidence and understanding the legalities around recording and digital communication, you can strengthen your case and protect your rights in the event of workplace discrimination or retaliation.

C. File a Charge with the EEOC or Your Local Human Rights Agency

When your employer fails to address your concerns or retaliates against you for reporting discrimination, filing a formal charge with the EEOC, NYSDHR, or NYCCHR can be critical in seeking justice. Each of these agencies has its strengths: the EEOC is the federal agency that handles claims under Title VII, while state and local agencies like the NYSDHR and NYCCHR offer broader protections and remedies under state and city laws.

Understanding the processes and potential remedies available through these agencies will help you make informed decisions as you navigate the legal system. Whether filing a charge at the federal, state, or local level, ensuring that your rights are protected requires timely action, careful documentation, and, if necessary, the guidance of an experienced employment attorney.

D. Consult with an Employment Lawyer

Discrimination and retaliation cases are often legally complex, involving nuanced interpretations of federal, state, and local laws. The stakes are high, as these cases affect your current job, long-term career, financial security, and emotional well-being. This is why consulting with an experienced employment lawyer is critical in protecting your rights and pursuing justice.

An employment lawyer specializes in the intricacies of workplace law and is uniquely positioned to help you navigate the legal landscape. They provide invaluable guidance at each stage of the process—whether you are gathering evidence, filing a claim, negotiating with your employer, or taking your case to court. Here’s how an employment lawyer can assist you in handling a discrimination or retaliation case:

1. Assessing Your Legal Options

One of the most important ways an employment lawyer can help is by evaluating the strength of your case. Employment law is highly fact-specific, meaning the outcome of your case depends heavily on the details surrounding the alleged discrimination or retaliation. An experienced attorney will thoroughly review the evidence you’ve collected, including documents, emails, witness statements, and any other relevant information, to determine the validity of your claim.

Your lawyer will also help you understand which legal avenues are available. Depending on your case, you might be eligible to file claims under federal law, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, or under state and local laws, such as the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) or New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). Each of these laws has different procedural requirements, deadlines, and potential remedies, and your lawyer will guide you in choosing the most strategic legal path.

2. Understanding Statutes of Limitations and Filing Deadlines

A key aspect of any legal case is adhering to the statute of limitations and filing deadlines. Different laws have different timelines for filing discrimination or retaliation claims, and missing these deadlines could prevent you from pursuing your case entirely.

An experienced employment lawyer will ensure that you meet all necessary deadlines and that your case is filed in the appropriate forum, whether at the federal, state, or local level. They will also determine if exceptions or tolling provisions might extend your filing window.

3. Gathering and Presenting Evidence

In discrimination and retaliation cases, the burden of proof often lies with the employee to show that the employer’s actions were motivated by discriminatory or retaliatory intent. This can be challenging, as many forms of discrimination or retaliation are subtle and not overtly documented. An experienced employment lawyer can help you collect the most robust evidence to support your case.

Lawyers have the expertise to identify the evidence most compelling in court or during settlement negotiations. For instance, they may suggest gathering additional witness statements, retaining expert witnesses, or subpoenaing internal company communications you may not have access to. They will also guide you in documenting any ongoing discriminatory or retaliatory behavior, ensuring that all evidence is preserved and presented in a legally permissible format.

Moreover, an employment lawyer will help establish the link between your protected activity (such as reporting discrimination) and the adverse action you experienced (such as a demotion or termination). This is particularly important in retaliation cases, where the timing and circumstances surrounding the employer’s actions must be carefully scrutinized.

4. Navigating the Administrative Process

Before filing a lawsuit under federal or state anti-discrimination laws, you must typically file a charge with the EEOC, NYSDHR, or a similar agency. This administrative process can be complex, involving multiple steps that require precision and attention to detail. An employment lawyer will help you:

• Draft your complaint or charge of discrimination, ensuring that all relevant facts are included and your legal claims are articulated.
• Respond to any requests for additional information from the agency.
• Assist with any mediation or settlement discussions the agency may initiate as part of its process.
• Represent you in administrative hearings, should they occur.

Administrative agencies often investigate the allegations; your attorney will guide you through this process. They will ensure that the agency’s requests for information are fulfilled promptly and accurately, and they will advocate on your behalf during any interviews or inquiries conducted by the agency.

Suppose the agency issues a “right to sue” letter after completing its investigation. In that case, your attorney will advise you on whether it’s worth pursuing litigation or if it makes sense to consider alternative forms of resolution.

5. Representing You in Negotiations

Many discrimination and retaliation cases are resolved through settlement negotiations rather than going to trial. Employers often settle cases early to avoid litigation costs, risks, and negative publicity. An employment lawyer can represent your interests during these negotiations, ensuring you are offered a fair and reasonable settlement.

Lawyers have extensive experience negotiating with employers and their legal teams, and they understand the value of your case based on similar cases, the strength of the evidence, and the potential damages you could recover in court. Where applicable, they will work to maximize your compensation, including back pay, front pay, emotional distress damages, and punitive damages. A skilled lawyer will also help you negotiate non-monetary terms, such as securing a positive reference or a mutual non-disparagement agreement.

When employers retaliate against employees who have filed claims, a lawyer can negotiate protective measures, such as reinstatement to a former position or a transfer to a more favorable role within the organization.

6. Litigation and Trial Representation

If settlement negotiations fail and you decide to pursue litigation, having an experienced employment lawyer is critical. Discrimination and retaliation trials are highly complex and require a deep understanding of legal precedent, evidentiary rules, and courtroom procedures.

Your lawyer will develop a comprehensive legal strategy, draft all necessary legal documents (such as complaints, motions, and briefs), and argue your case in court. This includes presenting evidence, cross-examining witnesses, and making persuasive legal arguments to the judge or jury. Litigation can be a lengthy process, often involving multiple stages of pretrial discovery, depositions, and hearings, and having a seasoned lawyer by your side ensures that your case is handled with the care and attention it deserves.

Furthermore, if you prevail in your case, your lawyer will help ensure that the judgment is enforced and that you receive any damages awarded by the court. If the outcome is unfavorable, your attorney can advise you on the possibility of an appeal and guide you through the appellate process.

7. Protecting You from Retaliation and Ensuring Compliance

Lastly, employment lawyers are well-versed in anti-retaliation protections. If you are concerned about further retaliation from your employer, your attorney can take steps to protect you. This may involve filing additional claims, seeking injunctive relief (such as a court order to stop retaliatory behavior), or negotiating terms to ensure you are not subject to future harm.

Employers may often need to implement corrective measures or policy changes as part of a settlement agreement or court order. An attorney will ensure that these terms are enforced and that your employer complies with all legal obligations moving forward.

VIII. Conclusion: The Broad Impact of Muldrow on Workplace Discrimination Law

The Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis marks a significant turning point in how courts evaluate workplace retaliation and discrimination claims under Title VII. By expanding the definition of adverse employment actions to include non-tangible harms, the Court has broadened the scope of employee protections and reaffirmed Congress’s original intent to combat all forms of workplace discrimination.

For employees, the Muldrow decision offers new avenues for challenging discriminatory actions that may not result in immediate financial harm but affect their working conditions, career opportunities, and professional advancement. For employers, the ruling underscores the importance of carefully documenting all employment decisions and ensuring they are based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons.

As the legal landscape continues to evolve post-Muldrow, employees and employers must remain vigilant in understanding their rights and responsibilities under federal, state, and local laws. By adopting best practices for documenting employment decisions, fostering a positive workplace culture, and ensuring compliance with anti-retaliation policies, employers can mitigate the risk of retaliation claims and provide a fair and equitable workplace.

If you or someone you know is facing workplace discrimination, it is crucial to take action. Stay informed about your rights and the legal protections available to you. Follow us on ,Ìý, and  for updates on sexual harassment and other legal matters. Visit our website at ¸£Àû¼§., for more information and to sign up for our newsletter. Together, we can work towards creating safer and more equitable workplaces for everyone.

The post Congress Designed It That Way: How Muldrow Reinforces Broad Protections Against Workplace Discrimination first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Eric Sanders, Esq., of ¸£Àû¼§., has announced that NYPD police officer, Alexandria Sanchez, filed a charge of discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC] against the police department of the City of New York. Sanchez alleges sexual harassment, hostile work environment and retaliation

NEW YORK – December 11, 2023 – The allegations in the Charge span a period from September 2019 through Spring 2023 during which time Sanchez claims she was hesitant to alert the [OEI] or the [IAB] to investigate the , and for fear of retaliation based on what she had seen happen in similar situations over the years, and on personal advice from another officer and precinct union representative.

The Charge outlines a pattern of behavior that began when her Lieutenant selected Sanchez to accompany him in a police vehicle for a special assignment along with another Latina female officer. During the assignment, he made multiple inappropriate sexual advances towards her and the other female officer present in the vehicle and, unsolicited, shared a sexually explicit photo of his penis on his cellular telephone phone. This type of behavior continued over the course of the next several years including escalating incidents of insults, unwanted sexual advances and inappropriate touching, much of which happened in the presence of other officers including those in supervisory positions. The officers and supervisors failed to report the abuses.

Sanchez alleges that the Lieutenant and his supporters began retaliating against her in response to refusal of his unwanted sexual advances. These included unfair discipline, threatening transfer to a less desirable assignment, denying days off, attempting to revoke approved vacation time and berating her in front of colleagues. Sanchez claims she contacted several union representatives and spoke to the Principal Administrative Aide and was offered no legal recourse. The Principal Administrative Aide also failed to report the abuses.

Though she felt unsafe reporting these instances, Sanchez alleges ultimately sharing the abuses with the Office of Equity and Inclusion [OEI] in April 2023, despite continued concerns of . Sanchez alleges these were valid concerns as her report has resulted in additional retaliatory actions against her including allegations of false entries regarding her assignments, denial of overtime and days off and extra supervisory scrutiny by the Integrity Control Officer in support of her aggressor. As a result, Sanchez felt that she had no other choice than to file a Charge of Discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC] to assert her legal rights under Title VII.  

“The continual blatant sexual harassment, hostility and retaliation that Sanchez faced from her Lieutenant, a position of authority and other supporters is appalling but, not shocking. Unfortunately, sexual harassment within the NYPD and the law enforcement community in general is a pervasive problem the management seem unwilling to eradicate,â€� said . “What’s even more disturbing is that other officers who witnessed or were aware these incidents, including those with a reporting obligation, failed to speak up, said Sanders.”

The Charge of Discrimination [Charge No.: 520-2024-01624] was filed with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on December 11, 2023.

ABOUT THE SANDERS FIRM, P.C.

Fighting for Justice, and Reform to Promote Equal Opportunity

New York Civil Rights Lawyer Eric Sanders, Esq., of ¸£Àû¼§., has a proven track record of fighting injustice and discrimination. With over 19 years of experience, Mr. Sanders has successfully litigated civil rights cases involving law enforcement agencies. The firm holds these institutions accountable and pushes for meaningful reforms to promote equal opportunity. Over the years, Mr. Sanders has secured millions of dollars in compensatory damages for clients alleging discrimination and other violations of civil rights.

CONTACT

Eric Sanders, Esq.
President and Owner, ¸£Àû¼§.
212-652-2782

# # #

The post Female NYPD Officer Reports Sexual Harassment, Male Supervisor Claims ‘Insubordination!’ first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..

Defining Sexual Harassment in Law Enforcement

in law enforcement refers to any unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that occurs within the context of a law enforcement agency. It’s important to remember, that sexual harassment also includes gender-based mistreatment based on an individual’s actual or perceived sex. Under these circumstances, such behaviors can create a hostile work environment and result in significant harm to the victim.

Different forms of sexual harassment can occur in law enforcement. One form is harassment, where a supervisor or higher-ranking officer conditions a job benefit or continued employment on the victim’s submission to unwelcome sexual advances or requests. Another form is harassment, where the victim is subjected to unwelcome sexual comments, gestures, or physical contact that creates an intimidating, offensive, or hostile work environment. It’s important to note that sexual harassment is not limited to the victim’s . It can occur between individuals of different genders, as well as within the same gender. Regardless of the specific circumstances, sexual harassment is unacceptable and against the law.

When it comes to holding perpetrators accountable, it is essential to understand that both individuals and organizations can be liable for sexual harassment in law enforcement. The may extend to the agency itself if it fails to take appropriate action to address complaints or if it allows a hostile work environment to persist. Additionally, supervisors and higher-ranking officers may be personally liable for their acts of harassment or for failing to prevent and address harassment within their command.

Prevalence of Sexual Harassment in Law Enforcement Agencies

Sexual harassment in law enforcement agencies is a widespread issue that demands attention. While there is no official data on the prevalence of sexual harassment specifically within law enforcement, studies and reports suggest that it is a significant problem.

As reported in the International Journal of Police Science & Management titled: , a survey of policewomen from 35 countries uncovered that seventy-seven [77] percent of officers have been a victim of seuxal harassment by a male colleague at least once. This statistic alone highlights the alarming frequency of these incidents within the profession.

Unfortunately, sexual harassment in law enforcement agencies often goes unreported due to fear of retaliation or the belief that nothing will be done about it. This creates a culture of silence that allows the perpetrators to continue their abusive behavior. The failure to report and address sexual harassment not only perpetuates the mistreatment of victims but also enables the perpetrators to evade accountability.

Internal investigations are a crucial step in uncovering and addressing instances of sexual harassment within law enforcement agencies. However, these investigations can often be flawed or biased, failing to act and hold those responsible accountable. In some cases, agencies may attempt to protect its reputation by sweeping the issue under the rug, rather than taking decisive action.

To combat the prevalence of sexual harassment in law enforcement agencies, it is essential to have strong reporting mechanisms and robust anti-harassment policies in place. Additionally, agencies must prioritize the training and education of their officers to prevent such behavior and create a safe working environment for all employees.

Impact of Sexual Harassment on Victims

Sexual harassment in law enforcement can have a profound impact on victims, both personally and professionally. The consequences of these actions can extend far beyond the immediate incident, leaving lasting scars that affect victims in various aspects of their lives.

Emotionally, victims of sexual harassment may experience feelings of shame, guilt, anger, and anxiety. They may suffer from depression, loss of self-esteem, and difficulty trusting others. The violation of their boundaries and the power imbalance inherent in the situation can lead to a sense of powerlessness and helplessness. Victims may also fear retaliation if they speak up or report the harassment, which can further exacerbate their emotional distress.

Professionally, sexual harassment can hinder a victim’s career advancement and opportunities. The hostile work environment created by harassment can impact their job performance, causing them to lose focus, productivity, and confidence. Victims may feel compelled to leave their jobs or transfer to different departments or agencies to escape the harassment, resulting in disruptions to their career trajectory and potential financial setbacks.

In addition to the psychological and professional toll, victims of sexual harassment may also experience physical health issues. The stress and anxiety caused by the harassment can lead to sleep disturbances, headaches, gastrointestinal problems, and other physical symptoms. The overall toll on their well-being can affect their relationships, personal lives, and overall quality of life.

It is important to acknowledge the significant impact that sexual harassment has on victims and the need for support and justice. Victims should not have to suffer in silence or navigate the complex legal process alone.

Steps to Take if You are a Victim of Sexual Harassment in Law Enforcement

If you find yourself a victim of sexual harassment in law enforcement, it is crucial to take immediate action to protect your rights and seek justice. Here are some important steps to consider:

1. Document the incidents: Start by keeping a detailed record of all instances of sexual harassment, including dates, times, locations, and descriptions of what occurred. This documentation will be crucial evidence if you decide to pursue legal action.

2. Report the harassment: It is important to report the harassment to your supervisor or someone in a higher-ranking position within the agency. Make sure to follow your agency’s reporting procedures and keep a record of your report, including who you spoke to and when.

3. Seek support: Reach out to trusted friends, family, or colleagues who can provide emotional support during this challenging time. You are not alone, and having a support system can make a significant difference.

4. Consult with an attorney: It is highly recommended to consult with an experienced labor and employment law or civil rights attorney who handles sexual harassment and related cases. They can guide you through the legal process, help you understand your rights, and provide representation if you choose to pursue a legal claim.

5. Gather evidence: Work with the attorney to gather any additional evidence that may support your case. This could include witness statements, photographs, emails, or any other relevant documents.

6. Explore your options: The attorney will help you understand the different legal options available to you, such as filing a complaint with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC], New York State Division of Human Rights [SDHR], New York City Commission on Human Rights [NYCCHR] including pursuing a civil lawsuit. The attorney will also provide guidance on the best course of action based on your specific circumstances.

7. Follow through with your chosen course of action: Once you have decided on the best course of action, it is essential to follow through with it. The attorney will be there to support and guide you every step of the way.

Remember, taking action against sexual harassment in law enforcement is not only about seeking justice for yourself but also about preventing future instances of harassment. By speaking up and holding the responsible parties accountable, you are contributing to a safer and more inclusive work environment for everyone.

Your Rights as a Victim of Sexual Harassment in Law Enforcement

As a victim of sexual harassment in law enforcement, it is crucial to understand your rights and the legal protections available to you. You have the right to a safe and respectful work environment, free from harassment and discrimination. Here are some important rights to be aware of:

1. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is unlawful for employers to discriminate against employees based on sex, including sexual harassment. This law applies to law enforcement agencies and protects employees against unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other forms of sexual harassment. There are similar laws under New York State Executive Law § 296 and New York City Administrative Code § 8-107.

2. Right to report: You have the right to report instances of sexual harassment to your supervisor, higher-ranking officers, or the appropriate investigative unit within your law enforcement organization. It is important to follow your agency’s reporting procedures and document your report for future reference.

3. Right to be free from retaliation: It is illegal for an employer to retaliate against you for reporting sexual harassment. This includes any adverse actions, such as termination, demotion, or hostile treatment, in response to your complaint.

4. Right to privacy and confidentiality: Your privacy and confidentiality should be respected throughout the investigation process. Your agency needs to maintain confidentiality to protect you from further harm and retaliation.

5. Right to a fair investigation: If you report sexual harassment, you have the right to an impartial and thorough investigation. Your agency should take your complaint seriously, conduct a prompt investigation, and take appropriate action against the perpetrator[s].

6. Right to legal representation: You have the right to consult with an experienced labor and employment law or civil rights attorney who handles sexual harassment and related cases. They can guide you through the legal process, protect your rights, and provide representation if you choose to pursue a legal claim.

How Our Law Firm Can Help Victims of Sexual Harassment in Law Enforcement

is here to provide comprehensive legal assistance and support to victims of sexual harassment in law enforcement. With our extensive experience in handling sexual harassment cases, we are dedicated to fighting for the rights of victims and holding the responsible parties accountable.

First and foremost, we offer a free consultation to discuss your situation and answer any questions you may have. During this consultation, we will listen to your story, gather relevant information, and provide an initial assessment of your case. This allows us to understand your unique circumstances and determine the best course of action moving forward.

Over the years, we have successfully represented clients experiencing sexual harassment in law enforcement. The firm is well-versed in the applicable laws and regulations enforced by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [], the New York State Division of Human Rights [] and the New York City Commission on Human Rights [.]

When you choose ¸£Àû¼§., you can expect personalized and compassionate representation tailored to your specific needs. We will guide you through the entire legal process, ensuring that you understand your rights and options every step of the way. We will help you gather evidence, and build a case while navigating the complexities of the legal system.

Our commitment to providing comprehensive support extends beyond the legal realm. We understand the emotional toll that sexual harassment can have on victims, and we are here to offer guidance, support, and reassurance throughout the process. We believe in creating a safe and inclusive environment for all our clients, and we will work tirelessly to ensure your voice is heard and your rights are protected.

If you or someone you know has experienced sexual harassment in a law enforcement agency, do not hesitate to reach out to our law firm. Together, we can fight against sexual harassment and work towards creating a safer and more inclusive environment within law enforcement. Contact us today to schedule your free consultation and take the first step towards justice.

The post Sexual Harassment in Law Enforcement: A Dirty Little Secret first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..

Defining Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

is a pervasive issue in the workplace that affects individuals across industries, positions, and demographics. To address this problem, it is crucial to have a clear understanding of what constitutes sexual harassment in the workplace.

Sexual harassment can be broadly defined as any unwelcome sexual advance, request for sexual favors, or other verbal, physical, or visual conduct of a sexual nature that creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. It is important to note that sexual harassment is not limited to actions directed solely at a specific individual, but can also include behavior that creates a hostile or offensive environment for others.

Examples of sexual harassment can vary but, may include unwanted sexual comments, jokes, or gestures, as well as unwanted touching, groping, or other physical contact. It can also include the display or distribution of sexually explicit materials or the use of sexually suggestive language or innuendos.

It is essential to understand that sexual harassment is not limited to interactions between colleagues of different genders. It can occur between individuals of the same gender or involve individuals in positions of power, such as supervisors or managers. Additionally, it is important to note that sexual harassment can occur both in person and through electronic communication, such as emails, text messages, or social media.

When defining sexual harassment in the workplace, it is important to recognize that it is not subjective or based on the intent of the harasser. What matters is how the behavior is perceived by the recipient. If the conduct is unwelcome and creates a hostile, intimidating, or offensive work environment, it may be considered sexual harassment.

By having a clear understanding of what constitutes , individuals are better equipped to identify and report instances of misconduct. It also allows organizations to develop policies and procedures to address and prevent sexual harassment, creating a safe and inclusive work environment for all employees. In the following sections, we will explore the extent of the problem, why it often goes unreported, the consequences for victims and organizations, as well as the legal protections in place for those affected by sexual harassment in the workplace.

The Scope of the Problem: Statistics and Trends

Sexual harassment in the workplace is a prevalent issue that affects individuals across various industries, positions, and demographics. To truly understand the magnitude of the problem, it is crucial to examine the and trends surrounding sexual harassment.

While accurate statistics can be challenging to obtain due to underreporting, available data reveals a troubling reality. According to a survey conducted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC] in 2019, approximately 1 in 3 women in the United States experience sexual harassment at work. This staggering figure highlights the widespread nature of the problem and the urgent need for effective solutions.

The impact of sexual harassment is not limited to a single industry or region. It affects employees in diverse sectors, including corporate, healthcare, education, and hospitality. Regardless of the job title or workplace setting, individuals can be subjected to unwelcome advances, offensive comments, or other forms of inappropriate behavior. Sexual harassment can occur at any organizational level, from entry-level positions to senior management roles, emphasizing the need for comprehensive prevention strategies.

Additionally, it is essential to recognize the trends related to sexual harassment reporting. Many victims choose not to report incidents due to various reasons, such as fear of retaliation, concerns about credibility, or a belief that nothing will be done. The power dynamics within organizations can further discourage victims from coming forward, especially when the harasser holds a position of authority.

Another significant factor contributing to underreporting is the culture of silence surrounding sexual harassment. Victims may feel isolated or ashamed, particularly if they believe they will not be believed or supported. The fear of damaging their reputation or career prospects can also hinder victims from speaking out. This culture of silence perpetuates the problem and allows perpetrators to continue their abusive behavior unchecked.

In recent years, the movement has shed light on the pervasiveness of sexual harassment and encouraged more victims to share their experiences. This increased awareness has sparked important conversations and led to some positive changes in how organizations address the issue. However, there is still much work to be done to ensure that all victims feel safe and supported when reporting incidents of sexual harassment.

In the next section, we will delve deeper into the reasons why sexual harassment often goes unreported. Understanding these barriers is crucial in developing effective strategies to combat sexual harassment and create safer work environments for all employees.

Reasons Why Sexual Harassment Goes Unreported

Sexual harassment is a pervasive issue in the workplace, but it often goes for a variety of reasons. Understanding these barriers is crucial in developing effective strategies to combat sexual harassment and create safer work environments for all employees.

One reason why sexual harassment goes unreported is fear of . Many victims worry that if they speak out, they will face negative consequences such as being fired, demoted, or ostracized by their colleagues. This fear is often justified, as retaliation is a common occurrence in cases of sexual harassment. Victims may also fear that their credibility will be questioned or that they will not be believed, further discouraging them from coming forward.

Another barrier to reporting is a lack of trust in the reporting process. Many victims do not believe that their employer will take their complaint seriously or that any action will be taken to address the issue. This lack of trust may stem from past experiences or a general perception that sexual harassment is not taken seriously in their organization. When victims see no accountability for the harasser or support for the victim, they may feel that reporting is futile.

A culture of silence surrounding sexual harassment also contributes to underreporting. Victims may feel ashamed or isolated, particularly if they believe they will not be believed or supported. This culture of silence perpetuates the problem and allows perpetrators to continue their abusive behavior unchecked. Victims may also fear the social repercussions of speaking out, such as damage to their reputation or strained relationships with coworkers.

The power dynamics within organizations can further discourage victims from reporting sexual harassment. When the harasser holds a position of authority or is a higher-ranking employee, victims may feel powerless and fear that their complaint will not be taken seriously. Reporting harassment by a superior can be particularly risky, as it may jeopardize the victim’s career prospects or lead to further mistreatment.

Lastly, victims of sexual harassment may choose not to report out of a desire to avoid the emotional toll of the process. Reporting an incident of sexual harassment often requires reliving traumatic experiences and going through an investigation or legal proceedings. This can be emotionally exhausting and retraumatizing for victims, causing them to prioritize their well-being over seeking justice.

To address the underreporting of sexual harassment, it is essential to create a supportive and inclusive workplace culture where victims feel safe to come forward. This includes implementing clear reporting procedures, providing training on sexual harassment prevention and response, and ensuring that victims are protected from retaliation. By addressing these barriers, organizations can encourage reporting, hold perpetrators accountable, and work towards creating a workplace free from sexual harassment.

Consequences of Unreported Sexual Harassment on Victims and Organizations

The of sexual harassment in the workplace has serious for both the victims and the organizations involved. When instances of sexual harassment go unreported, it perpetuates a culture of silence and allows the behavior to continue unchecked. This not only harms the individuals directly affected but also creates a toxic work environment for everyone.

For victims of sexual harassment, the decision to remain silent can have severe emotional, psychological, and physical consequences. Many victims experience feelings of shame, guilt, and self-blame, often leading to anxiety, depression, and even post-traumatic stress disorder [PTSD]. The constant fear of encountering the harasser and the hostile work environment can take a toll on their mental and physical well-being. In some cases, victims may even feel forced to leave their jobs, impacting their career prospects and financial stability.

Furthermore, unreported sexual harassment also has detrimental effects on organizations. When sexual harassment is not addressed, it undermines employee morale, trust, and engagement. Victims may feel unsupported and lose faith in the organization’s commitment to their well-being, leading to decreased productivity and increased turnover rates. Additionally, unaddressed sexual harassment can result in reputational damage for the organization, leading to loss of clients, customers, and business opportunities.

Another significant consequence of unreported sexual harassment is the perpetuation of the cycle of abuse. When perpetrators face no consequences for their actions, they are emboldened to continue engaging in inappropriate behavior, potentially harming more individuals. This not only perpetuates a culture of harassment but also creates a work environment where employees feel unsafe and unable to voice their concerns.

By contrast, when sexual harassment is properly reported and addressed, it sends a clear message that such behavior will not be tolerated. Victims who come forward and receive support from their organization are more likely to feel validated and empowered. They regain a sense of control over their work environment and may experience improved mental and physical well-being. Additionally, addressing sexual harassment in a timely and effective manner can help create a positive work culture built on respect, equality, and inclusivity.

Organizations that proactively address sexual harassment not only protect their employees but also benefit from improved employee satisfaction, loyalty, and productivity. They send a strong message that sexual harassment will not be tolerated, attracting top talent and maintaining a positive reputation. Moreover, legal consequences for organizations that fail to address sexual harassment can be severe, leading to lawsuits, financial penalties, and damage to the company’s image.

Legal Protections for Victims of Sexual Harassment

Victims of sexual harassment in the workplace are not without recourse. There are legal protections in place to ensure that victims can seek justice and hold their perpetrators and employers accountable for their actions. These legal protections vary depending on the jurisdiction, but generally, they encompass both civil and criminal remedies.

From a civil standpoint, victims of sexual harassment may choose to file a lawsuit against their harasser and/or their employer. This can be done through federal, state or local anti-discrimination agencies, such as the [EEOC] in the United States. These agencies investigate complaints of sexual harassment and may take legal action on behalf of the victim. In addition to agency action, victims can also choose to file a private lawsuit against their harasser and seek compensation for damages suffered as a result of the harassment.

Criminal protections for victims of sexual harassment are typically provided through criminal statutes that prohibit sexual assault and harassment. In many jurisdictions, unwanted sexual advances, physical contact, and other forms of sexual harassment may constitute criminal offenses. Victims can report the harassment to law enforcement, who will conduct an investigation and, may press charges against the harasser. If the harasser is convicted, they may face penalties such as fines, probation, or imprisonment.

Victims need to understand their legal rights and options to make informed decisions about how to proceed. Consulting with an attorney who specializes in employment law or sexual harassment can provide victims with guidance and support throughout the legal process. An attorney can help victims navigate the complexities of filing a lawsuit or reporting the harassment to law enforcement, and ensure that their rights are protected.

It is also worth noting that legal protections extend beyond just individual victims. Many jurisdictions have laws in place that require employers to take proactive measures to prevent and address sexual harassment in the workplace. These measures may include implementing anti-harassment policies, providing training for employees and supervisors, and establishing mechanisms for reporting and investigating complaints. By holding employers accountable for fostering a safe and inclusive work environment, legal protections serve to create lasting change and prevent future instances of sexual harassment.

In conclusion, victims of sexual harassment have legal protections that can help them seek justice and hold their harassers and employers accountable. These protections encompass both civil and criminal remedies and can vary depending on the jurisdiction. Consulting with an attorney who specializes in employment law or sexual harassment is crucial for victims to understand their rights and navigate the legal process effectively. By utilizing these legal protections, victims can help bring an end to the culture of silence surrounding sexual harassment and work towards creating safe and respectful workplaces for all.

Contact Us

As an intern, applicant or employee, if you believe that you are the victim of seuxal harassment, contact  When you do so a lawyer who is experienced in Title VII and other anti-discrimination law will review your claim, and discuss the possible routes you may choose to assert your legal claims. ¸£Àû¼§. is dedicated to being your voice for justice when you have been the victim of any type of discrimination, including sexual harassment claims.

The post The Hidden Epidemic: Why Sexual Harassment Is Underreported in the Workplace first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Eric Sanders, Esq., of ¸£Àû¼§., announces Andrea M. Kess has filed a Charge of Discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against the Town of East Hampton alleging a pervasive male centric ‘Boys Club’ where female officers are subjected to an abusive work environment and denied employment opportunities

NEW YORK, July 8, 2023 – Today, Ms. Kess says, “as a female police officer serving the Town of East Hampton, you expect to face certain challenges in a male-dominated field. However, constant harassment and discrimination should not be among them.�

According to a charge filed against the Town of East Hampton, for more than one hundred fifty-two [152] years its police management has systematically denied women equal employment opportunities and fair treatment, instead fostering an entrenched male centric ‘Boys Club’ culture. After enduring years of unequal pay and promotions as well as lewd comments by male colleagues, Ms. Kess has decided to take a stand to demand change. She aims to hold the Town and its police management accountable and ensure that women who choose to protect and serve have the chance to do so with dignity and respect.

In 1978, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC] adopted the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures [UGESP] under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The provides uniform guidance for employers to ensure its testing and selection procedures follow Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, theory of disparate impact. Ms. Kess alleges that the Town as an employer, upon information and belief, is not in compliance with the UGESP.

According to the Charge, Ms. Kess alleges that Chief Michael Sarlo; Captain Christopher Anderson; Lieutenant Daniel Toia; Lieutenant Gregory Schaefer; Sergeant Wayne Mata; Sergeant Gregory Martin; Police Officer Raymond Rau and others either participated, condoned, or acquiesced to the discriminatory practices. Moreover, she alleges that the Town is aware of this male centric ‘Boys Club’ culture but, has done nothing to protect its female officers.

Ms. Kess has served the department for over seven [7] years. Despite her extensive experience and education, she has been denied promotions and other employment opportunities repeatedly in favor of less qualified male colleagues. Ms. Kess alleges that the department under Chief Michael Sarlo has failed to grant she and other similarly situated female officers’ discretionary appointments to the Detective Division. In fact, Ms. Kess claims she was denied discretionary appointments twice to the Detective Division despite outperforming all officers in the measurable metrics of arrests, citations, and other law enforcement activities. During her tenure, Ms. Kess she sat for and passed the Promotion to Sergeant, Suffolk County Civil Service examination and placed number one (1) on the Eligibles List with the highest score for candidates. The certified Eligibles List was active from November 17, 2019 through November 17, 2021. The department had several vacancies due to retirements and other personnel related decisions.
Although there were several vacancies, Chief Michael Sarlo intentionally failed to promote her to sergeant due to her gender. Ms. Kess alleges that Chief Michael Sarlo intentionally let the Eligibles List expire to avoid promoting her and having two [2] female supervisors at the same time.

According to Ms. Kess, she alleges that female police officers at the East Hampton Police Department face discrimination and a hostile work environment due to the pervasive male centric ‘Boys Club’ culture. According to the Charge, the Town and its police management has failed to prevent and remedy severe and pervasive sexual harassment against its female officers.

• Specifically, Ms. Kess asserts that female officers have been subjected to inappropriate comments by male officers and supervisors. Male officers and supervisors allegedly made frequent remarks about the appearance and bodies of female officers, asked invasive questions about their personal lives, amongst other behaviors.
• Male officers and supervisors allegedly made frequent lewd remarks about the appearance and bodies of female complainants, asked invasive questions about their personal lives, and subjected them to biased investigations inconsistent with department policy, prevailing law, and best law enforcement practices.
• Kess also alleges that the Town and its police management has failed to properly investigate complaints of harassment and has retaliated against those who report such conduct. She and similarly situated female officers who complain about harassment face isolation, poor assignments, and stalled careers, creating a culture where abuse is tolerated and victims are silenced.
• In addition, Ms. Kess claims that the Town and its police management has failed to recruit, hire, promote and retain female officers, especially in supervisory roles. As a result, women are significantly underrepresented in the department, particularly in leadership positions, further perpetuating the male centric ‘Boys Club’ culture.

Ms. Kess seeks injunctive relief to reform the Town’s and department’s policies and practices regarding sexual harassment and discrimination as well as compensatory and punitive damages. Overall, she paints a disturbing picture of a department rife with discrimination that is unsafe and unwelcoming for female officers. Reform is desperately needed to remedy these civil rights violations, hold wrongdoers accountable, and bring the department into the 21st century.

“Frankly, Chief Sarlo and the other officers need to voluntarily step down, retire or be fired. More importantly, the Town should perform a top to bottom investigation of the department to ensure the male centric “Boys Club’ culture is eradicated and remedied,� says .

The Amended Charge of Discrimination [Charge No.: 520-2023-04797] was filed with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on June 30, 2023.

¸£Àû¼§. Fighting for Justice, and Reform to Promote Equal Opportunity

New York Civil Rights Lawyer Eric Sanders, Esq., of ¸£Àû¼§., has a proven track record of fighting injustice and discrimination. He’s currently representing Ms. Kess who claims that the Town and its police department has fostered a male centric ‘Boys Club’ culture that marginalizes and limits employment opportunities for she and other women.

With over nineteen (19) years of experience, Mr. Sanders has successfully litigated civil rights cases involving law enforcement agencies. The firm holds these institutions accountable and pushes for meaningful reforms to promote equal opportunity. Over the years, Mr. Sanders has secured millions of dollars in compensatory damages for clients alleging discrimination and other violations of civil rights.

In this matter, Mr. Sanders is seeking injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages to send a message that discriminatory practices will not be tolerated. The Charge and if necessary, a federal complaint filed in the United States Court for the Eastern District of New York – Central Islip requests the EEOC or the Court to require the Town and its police management to implement policy changes and training to remedy their harassment and discrimination. Specific measures proposed include:

• Appointing an independent monitor to oversee the Town and its police management’s compliance with federal, state, and local anti-discrimination laws.
• Revising hiring, retention, and promotion policies to increase diversity and inclusion.
• Providing mandatory sensitivity and diversity education for all personnel.
• Establishing a confidential complaint process so other victims feel safe coming forward.

By fighting against civil rights violations like those alleged here, Ms. Sanders continues to advocate for creating fair and equitable workplaces. Overall, Mr. Sanders remains dedicated to eliminating harassment and discrimination so that employees are judged based on “objective standards� consistent with the UGESP as well as prevailing federal, state, and local anti-harassment laws.

Contact

Eric Sanders, Esq.
President and Owner, ¸£Àû¼§.
Business Phone: 212-652-2782

###

The post Female Cop Sues East Hampton for Allowing ‘Boys Club’ Culture first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..