Legal Filing Alleges NYPD Officers Used Excessive Force and Unlawful Detention Over E-Bike Stop

New York, NY – February 22, 2025, A Brooklyn woman, Keyanna Moody, has filed an Amended Notice of Claim against the City of New York and multiple NYPD officers, alleging that she was unlawfully arrested, physically assaulted, subjected to racial slurs, and denied medical care after purchasing cotton candy for her five-year-old daughter in Coney Island on June 11, 2024. The claim asserts that officers wrongfully accused Moody of operating an unregistered vehicle, violently tackled her to the ground, and detained her under inhumane conditions.

The claim names several NYPD officers from the 60th Precinct, including Lieutenant Special Assignment Daniel Lacalamita, Sergeant Stanislav Zubyk, Police Officer Michael R. Moran, Police Officer Alvin M. Nieves, and Police Officer Jared W. Cordero, as individuals responsible for violating Moody’s constitutional rights.

Cotton Candy Purchase Leads to Brutal Arrest

According to the claim, on June 11, 2024, at approximately 8:15 PM, Moody and her husband rode their e-bikes at Canarsie Pier before deciding to head to Coney Island to buy cotton candy for their daughter. Moody operated a Z6 Fly E-Bike, a high-performance electric bike that did not require a license or registration under New York law.

At approximately 8:40 PM, after purchasing the cotton candy, the claim states that an unmarked NYPD vehicle and a police scooter aggressively maneuvered to block Moody’s movement. Officers allegedly exited their vehicles and immediately confronted Moody with hostility.

As detailed in the claim, Officer Nieves unlawfully seized Moody’s e-bike keys from the ignition without explanation, demanding license and registration—documents not legally required for her Z6 Fly E-Bike. The claim asserts this was an unlawful deprivation of property and an abuse of authority.

Recognizing the officers’ aggressive behavior, as alleged in the claim, Moody’s husband urged her to sit down to de-escalate the situation, which she did. As indicated in the claim, despite Moody’s compliance, officers continued to insist she provide documentation that was not required by law. The claim states that Lieutenant Lacalamita threatened Moody with arrest, and when she reiterated that the documents were unnecessary, he immediately ordered her arrest.

Allegations of Excessive Force and Racial Slurs

According to the claim, Officers Moran and Cordero violently tackled Moody to the ground without justification, injuring her knees, back, and arms. The claim further states that Officer Nieves attempted to deploy his Taser multiple times but, when unsuccessful, joined in physically restraining Moody by placing his knee on her back. At the same time, Officer Moran stepped on her legs.

The claim alleges that at least five additional officers stood by and failed to intervene while this occurred.

As Moody was being pulled toward a patrol car, the claim asserts that Lieutenant Lacalamita called her a ‘black bitch’ and attempted to slap and kick her before forcefully pulling her head and neck downward toward the vehicle. The claim further states that Moody was thrown face-first into the backseat—a practice inconsistent with NYPD guidelines prohibiting placing handcuffed individuals in a prone position due to the risk of positional asphyxia.

Post-Arrest Assault and Medical Neglect at the 60th Precinct

The claim details that at the 60th Precinct, Moody was brought before a desk officer while still handcuffed, where Lieutenant Lacalamita suddenly kicked her to the floor without provocation. The claim states that while she lay on the floor, Lacalamita stood over her and ordered her to ‘get the f* up’**, while the desk officer failed to intervene.

Despite the presence of a female officer, the claim alleges that male officers conducted a full-body search, making inappropriate physical contact with her breasts, vaginal area, buttocks, and thighs. Moody’s repeated requests to know the charges against her were ignored.

Five-Hour Denial of Medical Care

According to the claim, Moody’s visible injuries included bleeding knees, ripped clothing, and dirt stains. Yet, she was denied medical attention and placed in a holding cell for over five hours, during which she repeatedly requested medical care from Officers Cordero and Nieves but was ignored.

Only after she refused to provide her fingerprints were paramedics finally called. Upon assessment, EMTs determined Moody needed medical treatment for her injuries.

Hospital Misconduct and Lack of Medical Examination

The claim states that Moody’s vitals were taken at South Shore Brooklyn Hospital, and she was placed in the resuscitation area. However, Lieutenant Lacalamita reappeared, approaching her from behind. When Moody saw him, she allegedly voiced her fear and demanded that he leave, to which he falsely responded, “I’m not him. I wasn’t there.â€�

The claim further alleges that after approximately two hours, a doctor abruptly discharged Moody without conducting a complete examination. When she requested discharge papers, the doctor refused, handing them to the NYPD officer escorting her. Moody later discovered through medical records that her treating physician was Dr. Spencer Doblin Kim.

Charges Dismissed, But Police Made Property Retrieval Difficult

According to the claim, Moody was transported back to the 60th Precinct at approximately 3:30 AM and later transferred to Brooklyn Central Booking at 10:00 AM.

When she appeared before a judge, her attorney was absent, and the District Attorney vaguely stated the charges as ‘something about numbers’ before the judge dismissed the case.

Despite the dismissal, the claim asserts that Moody faced significant obstacles in retrieving her personal property, including her Z6 Fly E-Bike, money, jewelry, phone, and ID. When she presented a property release form issued by the DA’s Office, officers at the 60th Precinct refused to release her belongings, falsely claiming she needed a license, registration, and insurance for her e-bike. They then threatened her with arrest if she did not leave the precinct immediately.

NYPD Statistical Data Confirms Pattern of Racial Profiling

The Floyd Monitor’s 23rd Report provides compelling evidence that the NYPD disproportionately targets Black and Latino individuals. Recent NYPD statistical data confirms that:

• Black residents (22.7% of NYC’s population) account for 29.8% of NYPD vehicle stops, while
• White residents (35.9% of NYC’s population) account for only 17.8% of stops.
• Neighborhood Safety Teams (NSTs) conduct unlawful stops at a rate of 25%—far higher than standard NYPD patrols.

The claim states that these disparities support allegations of racial profiling, unlawful search and seizure, and excessive force.

Pattern of NYPD Misconduct and Similar Cases of Civil Rights Violations

The NYPD has a long and documented history of excessive force, racial profiling, and unconstitutional policing—particularly in communities of color. Mrs. Moody’s case is not an isolated incident but rather part of a systemic problem that has resulted in wrongful deaths, excessive force incidents, and legal settlements costing taxpayers millions of dollars.

Notable similar cases include:

• Eric Garner (2014): Died after NYPD Officer Daniel Pantaleo placed him in a prohibited chokehold while arresting him for allegedly selling loose cigarettes. His final words, “I can’t breathe,â€� became a national rallying cry against police brutality.
• Delrawn Small (2016): Shot and killed by an off-duty NYPD officer during a road rage incident. Video evidence contradicted the officer’s self-defense claims, yet no conviction followed.
• Kawaski Trawick (2019): Shot and killed inside his apartment after NYPD officers entered without cause and escalated a non-threatening situation into a fatal encounter.
• Dounya Zayer (2020): Knocked to the ground by an NYPD officer during the George Floyd protests, resulting in severe head trauma.
• Jaylin Ryan (2024): Ryan alleges false arrest, excessive force, and racial discrimination after officers handcuffed and punched him in the face, fracturing his jaw during a December 28, 2024, incident in the Bronx.
• Harold Thomas (2024): The legal filing alleges that Harold B. Thomas was unlawfully stopped, assaulted, and subjected to excessive force by NYPD officers, resulting in severe injuries.

Legal Action and Call for Reform

Moody seeks damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, emotional distress, and punitive damages for violating her civil rights. The City of New York is also implicated in failing to train, supervise, and discipline officers engaged in unconstitutional conduct.

Eric Sanders, Esq., of ¸£Àû¼§., stated:

“This case is yet another disturbing example of how unchecked police power leads to the mistreatment of innocent civilians. Mrs. Moody was violently arrested, humiliated, and denied basic medical care—for operating an E-Bike. This is a clear abuse of authority and highlights the systemic issues of racial profiling, excessive force, and lack of accountability within the NYPD. We will not stop until justice is served and those responsible are held accountable.”

Contact Information:

¸£Àû¼§.
30 Wall Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Phone: 212-652-2782

###

Read Amended Notice of Claim

The post From Cotton Candy to Cuffs: NYPD Officers Accused of Brutality in Unjust Arrest first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contact:

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

¸£Àû¼§.
30 Wall Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10005
±Ê³ó´Ç²Ô±ð:Ìý212-652-2782

###

EEOC Charge of Discrimination

The post NYPD “Mafiaâ€� Exposed: Lieutenant’s EEOC Complaint Reveals Retaliation, Corruption, and Selective Enforcement first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..

Four Men File Notice of Claim Alleging NYPD Officers Targeted Them Without Cause, Assaulted One, and Attempted to Obstruct Evidence

New York, NY – February 9, 2025 – A Notice of Claim has been formally filed with the New York City Comptroller’s Office on behalf of Claimants Benjamin A. Trye, Alister Alexander, Wilfred R. Trye, and Harold B. Thomas, alleging racially discriminatory policing practices, unconstitutional stops, excessive force, and wrongful arrests by officers of the New York City Police Department (NYPD). The filing details a December 7, 2024, incident in Queens where Claimants were unlawfully stopped, physically assaulted, and detained without legal justification.

Allegations in the Notice of Claim

The Notice of Claim alleges that on December 7, 2024, at approximately 4:00 a.m., Claimants Benjamin A. Trye, Alister Alexander, Wilfred R. Trye, and Harold B. Thomas were legally traveling in a 2021 Mercedes-Maybach Sedan S580 with New York Registration KZY 2940 in Queens when they became the targets of an unlawful and discriminatory police stop. The claim asserts that the Claimants had recently patronized Starlet’s of New York, located at 49-09 25th Avenue, Woodside, NY 11377, and were proceeding northwest on 25th Avenue toward 49th Street when they were subjected to what they describe as a racially motivated pretextual stop.

According to the Notice of Claim, Claimant Trye, the driver, observed an unmarked dark vehicle ahead of him and another behind him, maneuvering in a manner that appeared to box in his vehicle. Upon reaching the traffic light at 49th Street, Claimant Trye initiated a right turn onto 49th Street, heading northeast. Immediately after completing the turn, the dark vehicles suddenly activated their emergency lights, signaling for Claimant Trye to stop.

The Notice of Claim asserts that this vehicle stop was unlawful and racially motivated, lacking reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

The claim further states that an unidentified male approached the driver’s side window and declared that the tint on the windows was too dark. The individual, later identified as Police Officer Brian A. Guzman (Shield No.: 22997, Tax Registry No.: 971080), then ordered Claimant Trye to exit the vehicle. However, Officer Guzman failed to use a tint meter to measure the visible light transmission (VLT%) of the windows, as required under New York Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL) § 375(12-a)(2), rendering any issued citation unenforceable and unconstitutional.

The Claimants allege that this traffic stop was pretextual and based solely on an officer’s subjective visual estimation, which does not meet the legal standard for enforcement. The Notice of Claim alleges that the NYPD routinely applies window tint laws disproportionately against Black and Latino drivers as a justification for stops, searches, and interrogations in a pattern of racial profiling.

Escalation and Use of Excessive Force

As the stop escalated, Sergeant Eumir M. Ferrer (Shield No.: 2512, Tax Registry No.: 943232) approached the passenger side and aggressively ordered Claimant Alexander to exit the vehicle, shouting, “Get the f* out of the car.�** Claimant Harold N. Thomas, not understanding what was occurring, attempted to display Police Benevolent Association (PBA) cards, which Sergeant Ferrer discarded.

At that moment, Claimant Alexander heard a commotion and observed Claimant Thomas falling out of the vehicle and landing on the ground near the curb. He saw multiple NYPD officers surrounding Claimant Thomas, who was facedown on the pavement, while Police Officer Guzman and Police Officer Anthony N. Riccardi (Shield No.: 13105, Tax Registry No.: 970134) repeatedly punched him in the head, face, and body.

The Notice of Claim further alleges that while this assault occurred, Sergeant Ferrer and Lieutenant Andrew C. Dickson (Tax Registry No.: 943170) stood idly by and did not intervene.

Claimant Alexander, who was recording the incident, asserts that several officers, including Sergeant Ferrer, used flashlights to obstruct his camera view. Additionally, officers allegedly turned off their body-worn cameras to conceal their actions.

The Notice of Claim also states that Lieutenant Dickson falsely denied that officers had struck Claimant Thomas.

False Arrest and Prolonged Detention

The Notice of Claim states that the driver, Claimant Trye, was handcuffed and ultimately issued a summons for a VTL § 375(12-a)(2) window tint violation despite Police Officer Guzman failing to measure the tint with a legally required tint meter.

Claimant Thomas was charged with Obstructing Governmental Administration and Resisting Arrest despite not physically interfering with police activity.

Claimant Trye, the driver, and Claimant Thomas were transported to the 114th Precinct, where Trye was detained in a holding cell for several hours before being released with a universal summons. Thomas was allegedly held for 7.5 hours in a holding cell before being transferred to Queens Central Booking, where he remained for an additional 10 hours.

At Claimant Thomas’s arraignment before the Honorable Edward Daniel in Criminal Court, Part AR3, Docket No.: CR-042168-24QN, his case was adjourned in contemplation of dismissal (ACD) without his consent.

Harold Thomas Transcript- 12.7.24

Post-Arrest Allegations and City’s Response

The Notice of Claim alleges that on the morning of December 7, 2024, Claimant Thomas’s mother, retired NYPD Detective Second Grade Ila Thomas (Quality Assurance), was denied visitation at the 114th Precinct in what is described as an attempt to suppress evidence of the brutal police assault.

Later that afternoon, Claimant Thomas’s father, retired NYPD Detective First Grade Harold Thomas Sr. (Joint Terrorism Task Force), engaged in discussions with Mayor Eric L. Adams, former Chief of Department Jeffrey B. Maddrey, and former Chief of Internal Affairs Miguel A. Iglesias. These officials allegedly admitted to reviewing multiple body-worn camera (BWC) videos, including footage from Police Officer Riccardi, and confirmed that none of the Claimants had violated any laws. However, despite acknowledging the lack of any legal justification for the arrests or use of force, no action was taken against the officers, and the matter was not referred to the Queens District Attorney’s Office – Public Corruption Bureau or the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York.

Officer Profiles

The Notice of Claim details prior documented misconduct allegations against the officers involved in the incident:

• Lieutenant Andrew C. Dickson has a history of excessive force complaints, racial bias, and lawsuits related to civil rights violations.
• Sergeant Eumir M. Ferrer has had multiple substantiated allegations of excessive force, unlawful stops, and retaliatory summonses.
• Police Officer Brian A. Guzman has been named in multiple lawsuits with financial settlements related to excessive force and civil rights violations.
• Police Officer Anthony N. Riccardi has been accused of failure to provide legally required identification and excessive force, reinforcing patterns of misconduct.

NYPD Statistical Data

An analysis of NYPD vehicle stops in Q4 2024 reveals stark racial disparities:

• Black individuals accounted for 29.8% of all stops despite comprising only 22.7% of NYC’s population.
• White individuals accounted for only 17.8% of stops despite making up 35.9% of the population.
• Neighborhood Safety Team (NST) officers were responsible for a disproportionate number of unlawful stops, with 42% of their searches ruled unconstitutional.

These Claimants allege that the statistics support the assertion that the NYPD engages in racial profiling and selective enforcement.

Findings from the Floyd Monitor’s 23rd Report

The Floyd Monitor’s 23rd Report, which evaluates NYPD compliance with court-ordered reforms, found:

• 95% of stop reports and 93% of body-worn camera (BWC) footage involved Black or Hispanic individuals.
• 42% of frisks and 46% of searches were unlawful.
• Supervisors failed to intervene in cases of racial profiling, approving 99.1% of stop reports as ‘lawful’ even when unconstitutional.

Pattern of NYPD Misconduct and Similar Cases of Civil Rights Violations

The NYPD has a long and documented history of excessive force, racial profiling, and unconstitutional policing—particularly in communities of color. Mr. Ryan’s case is not an isolated incident but rather part of a systemic problem that has resulted in wrongful deaths, excessive force incidents, and legal settlements costing taxpayers millions of dollars.

Notable similar cases include:

• Eric Garner (2014): Died after NYPD Officer Daniel Pantaleo placed him in a prohibited chokehold while arresting him for allegedly selling loose cigarettes. His final words, “I can’t breathe,â€� became a national rallying cry against police brutality.
• Delrawn Small (2016): Shot and killed by an off-duty NYPD officer during a road rage incident. Video evidence contradicted the officer’s self-defense claims, yet no conviction followed.
• Kawaski Trawick (2019): Shot and killed inside his apartment after NYPD officers entered without cause and escalated a non-threatening situation into a fatal encounter.
• Dounya Zayer (2020): Knocked to the ground by an NYPD officer during the George Floyd protests, resulting in severe head trauma.
• Jaylin Ryan (2024): Ryan alleges false arrest, excessive force, and racial discrimination after officers handcuffed and punched him in the face, fracturing his jaw during a December 28, 2024, incident in the Bronx.

Legal Claims Asserted Under:

1. Federal Laws:

• Fourth Amendment Violations – Unlawful Search & Seizure, Excessive Force (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
• Fourteenth Amendment Violations – Equal Protection, Due Process (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
• False Arrest and Unlawful Detention – (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
• Excessive Force and Police Brutality – (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
• Racial Profiling and Selective Enforcement – (42 U.S.C. § 1983) Violation of Equal Protection Clause
• Failure to Intervene – (42 U.S.C. § 1983) Liability for officers who failed to stop excessive force
• Malicious Prosecution – Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
• Retaliation for Exercising Constitutional Rights – First Amendment Violation (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
• Monell Monell Liability (Municipal Liability) – City of New York: Failure to Train, Supervise and Discipline permitting a pattern of unconstitutional conduct.

2. New York City Local Laws:

• New York City Human Rights Law (Administrative Code § 8-107) – Discriminatory Policing and Racial Profiling

Call For Immediate Action

¸£Àû¼§. demands immediate accountability for the NYPD’s egregious civil rights violations. The brutal assault, false arrests, and racial profiling detailed in this case reflect a systemic failure in policing and oversight. We call upon:

• Mayor Eric L. Adams and NYPD Commissioner Jessica A. Tisch to launch an independent investigation into the involved officers and their supervisors.
• The Queens District Attorney and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York to pursue criminal charges against officers who engaged in or facilitated the assault and false arrests.
• The New York City Council and State Legislature to strengthen oversight and pass reforms preventing racial profiling and excessive force.
• Community members and civil rights advocates demand transparency, justice, and systemic change.

We will not tolerate unchecked police violence and will pursue every legal avenue to hold the City of New York accountable.

STATEMENT FROM THE SANDERS FIRM, P.C.

Eric Sanders, Esq., of ¸£Àû¼§.,Ìýstated:

“The violent and unconstitutional treatment of these four men by the NYPD is a direct violation of their civil rights and another glaring example of racial profiling and police brutality. The officers involved acted with impunity, escalating a baseless stop into a violent assault, while supervisors failed to intervene. This case is not an isolated incident—it is part of a deeply entrenched pattern of misconduct. The failure to discipline or prosecute officers who engage in excessive force and false arrests only emboldens further violations. We will fight relentlessly for justice, accountability, and civil rights protection for all New Yorkers.â€�

Contact:

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

¸£Àû¼§.
30 Wall Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10005
±Ê³ó´Ç²Ô±ð:Ìý212-652-2782

###

New York City Comptroller’s Notice of Claim 

The post NYPD Assault Legal Filing Alleges Inaction by Mayor Adams and Top Police Officials 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§..

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Eric Sanders, Esq., of ¸£Àû¼§., has announced that former NYPD police officer, Jermack Romero, filed a charge of discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC] against the police department of the City of New York. Romero alleges gender bias, systemic favoritism, and lack of transparency in the disciplinary process

NEW YORK – November 17, 2023 – The charge states that the police department of the City of New York, through its police commissioner and other management, utilizes arbitrary standards, which supports the idea of systemic favoritism, bias, and significant inconsistencies in how cases are initiated, prosecuted, and resolved.

Romero claims that the police commissioner and other management misused their statutory authority in connection with a domestic violence incident in September 2021, which involved his then-girlfriend. Through a former police commissioner, former First Deputy Commissioner, and their designees, Romero claims they failed to apply appropriate legal , resulting in his false arrest based on gender and other arbitrary standards. Romero was suspended pending investigation, and even though criminal charges were dismissed in January 2022, he remained on modified duty without cause until his .

Furthermore, Romero alleges that the department leadership frequently applies arbitrary standards of conduct, as exemplified in a 2021 incident where a male NYPD officer had sexual contact with a female complainant while actively investigating a carjacking in which she was a passenger. Despite the recommendation of termination, the Police Commissioner imposed a penalty of a loss of 30 vacation days and a one-year dismissal probation.

Lastly, the charge accuses department employees of continually violating Patrol Guide procedures by knowingly associating with persons who are reasonably believed to be engaged in, likely to engage in, or have engaged in criminal activities. Romero claims, it is common knowledge that several past police commissions frequently socialized with a principal of a Bronx restaurant who admitted to having a criminal record, including recurring allegations related to the sale of narcotics, prostitution, and other criminal conduct. Romero claims that this ‘conduct’ supports the idea of systemic favoritism, bias, and significant inconsistencies in how disciplinary cases are initiated, prosecuted, and resolved.

“It is the responsibility of those in a position of authority, who we depend on to serve and protect our communities, to act with integrity and equality. That includes understanding that anyone can be a victim of abuse, regardless of gender,� said . “Mr. Romero faced discrimination based on his , was denied his rights as a citizen, and suffered significant undue professional and personal consequences as a result of the misconduct of the police commissioner and other management.�

According to , “The blatant disregard for due process and the arbitrary application of the rules based on bias, personal relationships and political affiliations within the department is reprehensible. Considering the ongoing investigation into the , this is clearly a symptom of a systemic problem, and its officials must be held accountable.�

The Charge of Discrimination [Charge No.: 520-2024-02095] was filed with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on October 31, 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 Ex-NYPD Cop Reveals Tainted Disciplinary Process 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§..

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

New York Civil Rights Lawyer Eric Sanders, Esq., of ¸£Àû¼§., announces the filing of a federal lawsuit by NYPD Police Officer Hunna I. Lipke claiming that Dr. Gaetano V. Bello of the NYPD Pregnancy Medical District engaged in racial and pregnancy discrimination against her  

NEW YORK, N.Y., September 28, 2022 – Eric Sanders, Esq., owner of , a law firm recognized for vigorously representing civil rights victims in New York City, today announced the filing of a 17-count federal civil rights complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The lawsuit names the City of New York as defendant, accompanied by Pregnancy Medical District employees Gaetano V. Bello, medical doctor, and April Banners, senior police administrative aide.

On October 18, 2021, Lipke alleges that she was diagnosed with Hyperemesis gravidarum, a condition characterized by severe nausea, vomiting, weight loss, and electrolyte disturbance. She claims her OB/GYN advised that she was to be on bedrest and receive IV infusion treatment due to severe dehydration and weight loss. The OB/GYN instructed her to go to the hospital for immediate treatment for dehydration while awaiting approval from her insurance carrier for at-home infusion treatments. Lipke alleges she reported sick to the NYPD Medical Division on November 3rd and had to go to the emergency room on November 4th.

On November 8th, Lipke claims she spoke with Bello and alleges he threatened her, stating that he wanted to speak with her OB/GYN or he would return her to work with restricted duty status, despite the order for strict bedrest. Lipke claims that her OB/GYN left numerous telephones messages for Bello over the coming days, but he never responded. He then returned Lipke to work on restricted duty status on November 16th. Lipke claims she returned to work at the 109th Precinct with an IV in her arm, at which point her supervisor reported her sick to the NYPD Medical Division and sent her home.

Over the coming months Lipke alleges she continued to be subjected to a pattern of discriminatory and abusive treatment by Bello, despite experiencing documented medical events and having been diagnosed with additional conditions, including syncope (frequent fainting), irregular heartbeat and Fanconi Anemia Type A, which worsens during the pregnancy.

Additionally, the complaint alleges that Lipke was subjected to discriminatory and disparaging comments centered on her ethnicity and condition by Bello, including his statement to her during a January in-person visit, “I’m surprised that you would even have anemia and a heart monitor is nothing serious, considering you’re Asian. It’s mostly an Italian thing unless you have Italian in you?”

Over that same period, Lipke continued to request a reasonable accommodation regarding work due to her condition, but was repeatedly denied.

In filing this civil rights complaint, Lipke alleges that the unchecked actions of Bello against her, motivated by race and gender, caused her to suffer from depression and anxiety, and jeopardized the health, safety and welfare of herself and fetus. Lipke further alleges that the department is aware of similar complaints of mistreatment filed against Bello for years, but that the NYPD has done nothing to protect its female uniformed employees.

“Needless to say, the organizational operation of the Pregnancy Medical District is problematic,â€� states . “As we proceed through the civil litigation, we’re eager to create an alternative solution for its female employees.”

This federal civil rights lawsuit was filed on September 23, 2022, in United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York: Lipke v. City of New York, et al. Docket No.: 1:22-cv-05687.

About ¸£Àû¼§.

offers those in the New York City area legal services related and connected to civil rights, civil service rights, criminal law and discrimination. We firmly believe in everyone’s individual rights that are described and guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America. We understand that our freedoms and liberties are sacrosanct and that they have been won in many and various hard-fought battles. We are committed in every way to protecting your civil rights.

Contact:

Eric Sanders, Esq.

President and Owner

212-652-2782

###

The post Bad ‘Bedside’ Manners Results in Another NYPD Lawsuit first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

New York Civil Rights Lawyer Eric Sanders, Esq., of ¸£Àû¼§., announces the filing of a federal lawsuit by NYPD Police Officer JoAnn C. Rivera claiming that members of the NYPD including the Pregnancy Medical District disregards the legal rights of pregnant mothers

NEW YORK, N.Y., September 28, 2022 – Eric Sanders, Esq., of , a leader in representing civil rights victims in New York City, today announced that Joann C. Rivera, a Training Officer assigned to the 32^nd Precinct, has filed a 13-count federal civil rights lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the City of New York and eight members of the NYPD.

The federal complaint alleges that in early October 2020 Rivera suspected she was pregnant and shared the news with coworkers, but claims that she did not immediately inform her supervisors. Rivera alleges that she decided not to disclose initially because of her prior experience within the 32^nd Precinct, which had a history of mistreating pregnant female officers over the years.

In late October 2020, Rivera alleges her immediate supervisor, Emma Rodriguez, intentionally reassigned her to an unfavorable tour in response to learning of her undisclosed pregnancy. Rivera claims this was the first of numerous actions and reassignments that were discriminatory in nature and jeopardized her health and the viability of her fetus.

In November 2020, Rivera claims she informed supervisors that she was pregnant and had contracted Covid-19. Very ill at that time, she went to the emergency room where Rivera was diagnosed with Hyperemesis gravidarum, a condition characterized by severe nausea, vomiting, weight loss, and electrolyte disturbance. Rivera was prescribed multiple medications and informed that if her condition worsened, it would require a stay in the hospital to receive fluid and nutrition through an intravenous line (IV).

Rivera claims she was forced to use her regular sick time at that point for legitimate absences, despite being eligible for Covid-19 sick time and pregnancy leave, which was inconsistent with department policy. Rivera claims she reported her diagnosis and condition to Gaetano Bello, a medical doctor with the Pregnancy Medical District. Rivera alleges that instead of affording her an opportunity to manage the severity of Hyperemesis gravidarum, Bello was dismissive of the condition and informed her that he would be returning her to work.

Thereafter, Rivera alleges she was ordered to drive approximately 80 miles from Orange County to Queens County (during the midst of Covid lockdowns) to meet with Bello versus being allowed to conduct the meeting virtually. The meeting lasted a couple minutes according to Rivera, during which time she provided her medical records to Bello. After a quick review, he disregarded her OB/GYN’s medical opinion and ordered her to return to work.

Shortly after that meeting, Rivera was transferred. This reassignment allegedly required a two-hour commute, causing a severe hardship given Rivera’s diagnosed condition – it interfered with her ability to visit with her OB/GYN in case of a need for further medical treatment.

In late December, Bello threatened to refer Rivera’s case to Absence Control for investigation, essentially accusing her of abusing the pregnancy leave policy. In February 2021 Rivera allegedly received a substandard performance evaluation of 67 out of 100 (subsequently changed to 74), which failed to mention her pregnancy and Hyperemesis gravidarum condition. The 2020 performance evaluation score differed considerably from her prior evaluations of 94 out of 100 in 2018 and 91 out of 100 in 2019.

From the point of the first discriminatory actions through July 1, 2021, when she officially started child care leave, Rivera allegedly submitted numerous requests for reasonable accommodations due to her medical condition that were consistent with departmental policy, but was repeatedly denied. Rivera allegedly filed complaints with the NYPD Office of Equity and Inclusion, as well as charges of discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) several times, including December 2021, but has yet to receive any acknowledgment.

“Over the years, many female officers complained about the Pregnancy Medical District. Unfortunately, as usual, it takes civil litigation to force the Department towards organizational change,� said . “With this litigation, we hope to accomplish organizational and structural changes that better serves its female employees.�

This federal civil rights lawsuit was filed on September 23, 2022, in United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York: Rivera v. City of New York, et al. Docket No.: 1:22-cv-05699.

About ¸£Àû¼§.

offers those in the New York City area legal services related and connected to civil rights, civil service rights, criminal law and discrimination. We firmly believe in everyone’s individual rights that are described and guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America. We understand that our freedoms and liberties are sacrosanct and that they have been won in many and various hard-fought battles. We are committed in every way to protecting your civil rights.

Contact:

Eric Sanders, Esq.

President and Owner

212-652-2782

###

The post NYPD Officer Alleges Pregnancy Discrimination: Suit first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

New York Civil Rights Lawyer Eric Sanders, Esq., of ¸£Àû¼§., announces the filing of a federal class action lawsuit by New York State Trooper Schashuna D. Whyte claiming that the New York State Police disregards the legal rights of pregnant and nursing mothers

NEW YORK, September 22, 2022 – According to the lawsuit, Trooper Whyte, assigned to Troop – NYC claims that since August 15, 2007, the New York State Police and their agents have engaged in a pattern, practice and policy of failing and refusing to provide nursing mothers with reasonable break times and a proper location to express milk.

While assigned to the police academy, Whyte claims that it was evident that the New York State Police and its culture does not respect its female employees. Whyte also learned that the New York State Police does not provide maternity leave, according to the lawsuit.

Whyte claims that she was pregnant twice while employed with the New York State Police but, never accommodated, according to the lawsuit.

According to the lawsuit, the New York State Police as an employer is required but, is not in compliance with the Affordable Care Act or New York State Labor Law Section 206-c.

Whyte claims after returning from maternity leave and resuming her patrol duties, from February 2019 through July 2019, Former Acting Superintendent Keith M. Corlett and Former Commander Paul E. Hogan, Troop – NYC failed to provide her with a private lactation space; therefore, she expressed milk in the police vehicle, other government or private bathrooms which were uncomfortable, unsanitary and unsafe or not at all.

Recently, Superintendent Kevin P. Bruen and Commander Douglas A. Larkin, Troop – NYC intentionally denied her request for modified assignment to Troop – L a mere 10 minutes from her home and OB/GYN which would have been consistent with managing her high-risk pregnancy, instead transferred her to Troop – NYC to handle communications a 3–4-hour daily commute from her home and OB/GYN which was inconsistent with managing her high-risk pregnancy.

Whyte claims when inquiring about maternity leave, a representative within the Human Resources – Leave Department told her that she does not qualify for the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) because she requested military leave to attend the United States Army Officer Candidate School for 2 months in 2019 and 3 months for the Basic Officer Leadership Course in 2020.

Whyte received her commission and holds the rank of second lieutenant, assigned to the New York State National Guard.

Under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), Whyte claims that the State of New York and the New York State Police are required to grant her up to 5 years of unpaid leave for active military duty, entitles her to receive 12 weeks of leave for a qualifying exigency and up to 26 weeks of military caregiver leave.

According to the lawsuit, Whyte claims that she qualified for FMLA under both the 12-month and 1,250-hour requirements and that the State of New York and New York State Police violated her rights FMLA under USERRA.

“It’s shameful that Governor Cuomo, New York State Police managers and Attorney General James disregard legislative mandates protecting the legal rights of pregnant and nursing mothers in the workplace. With this and similar legal actions we intend to hold employers accountable for failing to follow the law,â€� said lawyer .

Schashuna D. Whyte v. New York State Police, et al., Docket No.: 22 cv 5633, was filed on September 21, 2022, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York

ABOUT THE SANDERS FIRM, P.C.

 offers those in the New York City area legal services related and connected to , ,  and . We firmly believe in everyone’s individual rights that are described and guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America. We understand that our freedoms and liberties are sacrosanct and that they have been won in many and various hard-fought battles. We are committed in every way to protecting your civil rights.

CONTACT

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

###

The post NYS Trooper Sues Agency Over Failure to Protect Pregnancy Rights first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

17-Year NYPD Police Sergeant alleges civil rights violations, including false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution due to race

New York, N.Y., Sept. 12, 2022 – Eric Sanders, Esq., of , a leading civil rights firm in New York City, today announced that NYPD Sergeant Eva Y. Peña, a 17-year member of the NYPD, who identifies as Dominican, has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York against Macy’s Inc., its employees, the City of Yonkers, and its officers, for violating her civil rights through their collective and ongoing constitutional violations in a case involving false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.

The federal civil rights complaint alleges that on September 3, 2019, Peña, a loyal long-time customer of Macy’s Inc., entered the retailer’s store location inside of the Cross County Mall located in Yonkers, N.Y., and proceeded to shop. Unbeknownst to her at the time, Peña was surveilled by Macy’s Inc. employees Samantha Newton-Henry, asset protection detective, Brian Swift, asset protection manager, Divindra Persaud, asset protection manager, and others.

Upon leaving the retail location, Peña was surrounded by asset protection personnel, accused of petit larceny and escorted to the retailer’s asset protection office where she was detained in a holding cell against her will and despite her pleas of innocence.

Police personnel from the Yonkers Police Department were subsequently called and provided a ‘false’ statement on behalf of Macy’s Inc. by Newton-Henry, who later modified her statement and admitted that members of the team deleted text messages and destroyed potentially exculpatory evidence. Peña alleges that the Yonkers’ police officers intentionally failed to independently investigate her claims of innocence at that time, or since, although video files maintained by Macy’s Inc. were readily available for instant review.

Peña alleges that “but for her race,� the Defendants, in joint participation, have collectively engaged in falsely arresting and maliciously prosecuting her without the existence of probable cause or having observed a crime committed in their presence in the Yonkers’ City Court case. As a result, the NYPD took action to suspend, then modify Sergeant Peña’s duties, with the recommendation to terminate her employment. Although Sergeant Peña continues to be employed within the Fleet Services Division of Queens County, the NYPD has passed her over for promotion to the position of Lieutenant on several occasions.

Relevant to this complaint is the fact that Macy’s Inc. has a historical track record regarding its treatment of Non-White customers, which was addressed by the 2005 Office of the New York State Attorney General (OAG) Memorandum Agreement, and other more recent court actions. The OAG Agreement covered prohibited activities, including profiling, false arrest, false imprisonment, prohibiting a detained individual from having counsel present during questioning, unlawfully obtaining a confession under duress, and more. A key issue addressed in the OAG Agreement involved the fact that the percentage of Non-Whites arrested for petit larceny at Macy’s Inc. locations was far greater than the percentage of Caucasians similarly arrested in its stores.

“Unfortunately, Macy’s, the Yonkers Police Department and Westchester District Attorney failed to follow constitutional standards designed to protect Ms. Peña from being falsely arrested and maliciously prosecuted,â€� say . “This is particularly egregious in light of ‘troubling’ admissions from Macy’s Asset Protection Detective Samantha Newton-Henry during an NYPD department trial in which she admitted that she followed Peña although not observing any illegal conduct, that there was no ‘evidence’ Peña committed any crime, and that she and other asset protection personnel discarded ‘evidence’ regarding their observations of Peña.”

The federal lawsuit alleges that due to the actions of the Defendants, Peña suffered emotional distress, monetary damage, and incurred medical and legal expenses. “With this federal complaint, Pena intends to hold these parties legally accountable while shedding light upon the allegations of persistent marginalization of Black, Hispanics and other customers of color by Macy’s asset protection personnel in joint participation with government actors,â€� added .

The federal civil rights lawsuit was filed in United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York: Eva Y. Peña v. Macy’s Inc., City of Yonkers, et al. Docket No.: 1:22-cv-05268.

About ¸£Àû¼§.

offers those in the New York City area legal services related and connected to civil rights, civil service rights, criminal law and discrimination. We firmly believe in everyone’s individual rights that are described and guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America. We understand that our freedoms and liberties are sacrosanct and that they have been won in many and various hard-fought battles. We are committed in every way to protecting your civil rights.

Contact

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

###

The post Falsely Accused NYPD Officer Files Civil Rights Complaint Against Macy’s Inc. first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..