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 ¸ŁŔűź§., 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.”

´Ą˛ú´ÇłÜłŮĚý¸ŁŔűź§.

Fighting for Justice and Reform to Promote Equal Opportunity

Led by Eric Sanders, Esq.,Ěý¸ŁŔűź§. 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,Ěý¸ŁŔűź§.
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 Do”: Explosive Sexual Misconduct Allegations Rock NYPD first appeared on ¸ŁŔűź§..

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

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

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

Allegations of Gender Discrimination and Gender Stereotyping

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

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

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

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

Arrest Record Discrimination in Violation of State and City Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary Discipline, Systemic Favoritism, and Senior Official Misconduct

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

Among the comparators cited:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Retaliation for Asserting Protected Rights

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

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

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

Relief Sought

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

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

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

About ¸ŁŔűź§.

Fighting for Justice and Reform to Promote Equal Opportunity

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

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

###

Read the Verified Complaint

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

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

A Culture of Selective Enforcement and Political Protection

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

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

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

Retaliation Begins: From ICO to Target

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

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

The Overtime Racket and Financial Retaliation

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

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

Weaponized Psychological Review and Medical Harassment

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

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

Public Disclosure Forces Sudden Reinstatement

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

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

Retaliation Escalates: The Ortiz Lawsuit and Internal Complaint

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

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

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

A Lawsuit for Accountability, Not Just Relief

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

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

A Broader Call for Structural Change

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

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

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

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

Contact:

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

¸ŁŔűź§.
30 Wall Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10005
ąĘłó´Ç˛Ôąđ:Ěý212-652-2782

###

Read the Verified Complaint

The post Whistleblower NYPD Lieutenant Sues City, Exposes ‘Mafia Culture’ and Caban-Fueled Corruption first appeared on ¸ŁŔűź§..

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

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

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

Protected Activity Turns to Institutional Backlash

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

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

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

A Racially Charged Confrontation

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

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

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

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

A Biased and Retaliatory Investigation

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

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

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

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

Systemic Silence: Witnesses Intimidated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maddrey’s Central Role

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

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

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

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

The Legal Claims

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

• Race Discrimination

• Gender Discrimination

• Hostile Work Environment

• Retaliation

• Aiding and Abetting by supervisors and peers

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

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

A Department-Wide Crisis of Accountability

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

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

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

Contact:

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

¸ŁŔűź§.
30 Wall Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10005
ąĘłó´Ç˛Ôąđ:Ěý212-652-2782

###

Read the Verified Complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Disciplinary System Plagued by Political Interference and Bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

Department Trial: A Flawed and Biased Process

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

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

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

Retaliation and the Reopening of a Previously Closed Disciplinary Matter

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

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

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

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

Gender Discrimination and Disparate Treatment in Disciplinary Matters

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

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

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

Eric Sanders, Esq., of ¸ŁŔűź§., stated:

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

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

Contact Information:

¸ŁŔűź§.
30 Wall Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10005
ąĘłó´Ç˛Ôąđ:Ěý212-652-2782

###

Read the Federal Complaint

Read the Independent Panel Report

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

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 ¸ŁŔűź§., 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 ¸ŁŔűź§., 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 ¸ŁŔűź§., or follow us on ,Ěý, and .

Contact Information

¸ŁŔűź§.
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 ¸ŁŔűź§..

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 ,Ěý, and  for updates on sexual harassment and other legal matters. Visit our website at ¸ŁŔűź§., 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 ¸ŁŔűź§..

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Eric Sanders, Esq., of ¸ŁŔűź§., 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,” 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 ¸ŁŔűź§., 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, ¸ŁŔűź§.
212-652-2782

# # #

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Eric Sanders, Esq., of ¸ŁŔűź§., has announced that NYPD police officer, Nancy Farrell, filed a charge of discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC] against the police department of the City of New York. Farrell alleges disability and gender discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation

NEW YORK – December 8, 2023, – Farrell alleges that she sustained significant injuries to both her knees, as well as several other related injuries, after she and another officer were effecting an arrest of a perpetrator on a subway platform in April 2023. After the arrest, Farrell was transported from the scene to a nearby hospital and, based on the findings from initial x-rays, she was referred to seek additional medical attention for knee and shoulder injuries. Farrell claims she met with a Department Surgeon at the Special Medical District shortly thereafter but was not approved to seek care from an orthopedic specialist until early May, during which time her medical condition deteriorated.

Farrell claims she ultimately had to use a because walking became a hazard due to the extent of her knee and related injuries. Under the treatment of an independent orthopedic specialist, it was suggested that she not return to full duty work. Despite her medical limitations and against the advice from her treating physician, the Department Surgeon recommended her return to work in a Limited Capacity. In fact, shortly thereafter, Farrell claims she was scheduled for firearms recertification although her medical limitations and prescribed medications made that impossible. These ‘blatant’ actions were taken without regard for her need for special in violation of the , according to Farrell.

In August 2023, Farrell sought treatment from a second independent orthopedic specialist who recommended she be put on 100% disability until further notice due to the severity of her injuries, pain and lack of mobility. Once again, Farrell claims counter to independent professional medical advice, a Department Surgeon recommended that she return to work in a Limited Capacity. A Department Surgeon also informed Farrell at this time that her requests for would be denied and she would need to seek coverage from her personal health insurance carrier for continued treatment because the physical deterioration she continued to experience was not sustained in the line of duty.

During this period, Farrell requested on several occasions due to her limited mobility, medications prescribed by her treating physicians, concern for personal safety while driving or traveling on public transportation. These pleas were repeatedly ignored and then ultimately denied. In fact, Farrell alleges that in that timeframe she was also transferred to a less convenient assignment, that made it even more difficult for her in terms of travel and scheduling necessary medical appointments, in an act of blatant retaliation.

“The continual refusal of the medical staff assigned to the Special Medical District and the management of Transit District No.: 33, to recognize her medical limitations and provide her with critical medical care and other accommodations for injuries sustained in the line of duty is not only callous, but also in direct violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, said .

As a result, Farrell alleges filed a Charge of Discrimination against the City of New York naming Anthony Maniscalco, Saila De Tore, James Sullivan, Kimberly Motto, Gregory Mackie and Julio Meyreles, as actors violating the .

The Charge of Discrimination [Charge No.: 520-2024-01623] was filed with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on December 08, 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 ¸ŁŔűź§., 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, ¸ŁŔűź§.
212-652-2782

# # #

The post Female NYPD Officer Says Line of Duty Treatment Unlawfully Denied first appeared on ¸ŁŔűź§..

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Eric Sanders, Esq., of ¸ŁŔűź§., 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 ¸ŁŔűź§., 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, ¸ŁŔűź§.
212-652-2782

# # #

The post Ex-NYPD Cop Reveals Tainted Disciplinary Process first appeared on ¸ŁŔűź§..