For Immediate Release
Epps Obtains Pistol License with Law Enforcement Endorsement After Licensing Authority and Court Review
New York, NY — Thursday, March 5, 2025 — Retired New York City Police Department Lieutenant Quathisha Epps has obtained a pistol license with a law-enforcement endorsement after sustained advocacy and legal scrutiny surrounding what her counsel describes as a retaliatory campaign by senior NYPD leadership. The determination follows a prolonged dispute involving allegations of sexual assault, whistleblower retaliation, payroll manipulation, credential blocking, certification consequences, and broader institutional misconduct at the highest levels of the Department.
The licensing outcome is significant not only because it restores an important legal right, but because it shows what happens when the facts are reviewed outside the internal political machinery of One Police Plaza. In an independent forum, the narrative used to justify the Department’s treatment of Epps did not hold.
Background: A Distinguished Career Cut Short
Lieutenant Quathisha Epps served the New York City Police Department with distinction for more than a decade, rising to the rank of Lieutenant Special Assignment. During her career she held leadership roles within the department and contributed to community engagement initiatives, including youth mentorship and domestic violence advocacy.
After enduring months of alleged quid pro quo sexual harassment and coercion within the Office of the Chief of Department, Epps filed for a Vested Interest Retirement on December 18, 2024. Shortly thereafter, she publicly disclosed allegations that former Chief of Department Jeffrey B. Maddrey had sexually assaulted her inside NYPD Headquarters.
In the immediate aftermath of these disclosures, the NYPD under Police Commissioner Jessica S. Tisch initiated a series of administrative actions that effectively destabilized her professional standing and financial security. These actions included suspension, interference with her retirement processing, denial of her retired identification credentials, and efforts to revoke her police officer certification through the New York State Department of Criminal Justice Services.
Despite these measures, Epps lawfully retired from the NYPD and continues to receive pension benefits through the New York City Police Pension Fund, confirming her separation from service under lawful retirement status.
Retaliatory Administrative Actions
Following Epps’s disclosures and the filing of formal discrimination complaints, the NYPD escalated a series of administrative actions that raised serious legal concerns. Those actions included the refusal to issue her retired NYPD identification credentials; interference with the issuance of a “Good Guy Letter,” which is typically required for firearm licensing applications involving retired officers; the NYPD’s May 14, 2025 referral to the New York State Department of Criminal Justice Services reporting Epps as a removal-for-cause case, which led DCJS, by letter dated May 21, 2025, to permanently invalidate her police officer basic training certification effective immediately and bar her from future certification; and her suspension immediately after the allegations against Maddrey became public. According to counsel, that certification consequence was imposed despite the absence of disciplinary charges, a hearing, or any final departmental finding against Epps.
The Overtime Smear Campaign
As Epps pursued legal remedies and publicly disclosed the alleged misconduct, the Department’s response shifted from defense to narrative control. Confidential overtime records were leaked to the media and recast as evidence of payroll abuse. The NYPD then issued a demand seeking repayment of approximately $231,896.75 in previously approved overtime earnings.
According to counsel, that demand did not follow a sworn audit, neutral payroll review, or any administrative adjudication. Instead, it relied on generalized references to allegedly “missing” overtime slips and reconstructed records. That framing is significant because it ignores what counsel contends are longstanding NYPD payroll customs, including incomplete documentation, retroactive corrections, and reconstructed time entries that have historically been processed without disciplinary consequences.
Against that backdrop, the Department’s treatment of Epps stands out. Despite years of substantial overtime payouts across the NYPD, Epps was singled out for a clawback demand only after reporting sexual misconduct and related wrongdoing involving senior leadership. According to counsel, that sequence does not reflect neutral enforcement. It reflects selective retaliation, and it remains a central component of the legal claims now under review.
Legal Framework and Institutional Liability
The legal issues raised by Epps’s case extend well beyond an internal personnel dispute. According to counsel, the retaliatory actions that followed her reports of sexual assault, quid pro quo harassment, and executive misconduct implicate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, all of which prohibit retaliation, discrimination, and the misuse of official authority against an employee who engages in protected activity. The payroll issues raise a separate and equally serious concern. Under New York Labor Law and 12 NYCRR § 142-2.6, the employer—not the employee—must establish, maintain, and preserve accurate payroll records. That duty cannot be reversed after the fact and weaponized against a whistleblower. Epps’s legal position is that where an employer has long tolerated incomplete, reconstructed, or manually corrected timekeeping practices, it cannot suddenly rebrand those same practices as fraud only after protected activity occurs. In support of that position, Epps relies on Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946), and Matter of Mid-Hudson Pam Corp. v. Hartnett, 156 A.D.2d 818 (3d Dep’t 1989).
The Licensing Decision
While the Department was escalating administrative pressure, Epps pursued relief through the proper licensing channels. That process mattered because it required an independent review of her eligibility rather than reliance on the NYPD’s internal narrative.
Under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, qualified retired law enforcement officers who meet the statutory requirements remain eligible to carry concealed firearms. According to counsel, Epps satisfied those requirements: she retired after more than a decade of NYPD service, receives a nonforfeitable pension through the New York City Police Pension Fund, and has no disqualifying criminal history.
After reviewing the record and the surrounding circumstances, the licensing authority granted Epps a pistol license with a law-enforcement endorsement. That determination was significant. It confirmed that, when her status was evaluated in an independent forum, the retaliatory administrative actions taken against her did not disqualify her from exercising rights tied to her lawful retirement and prior service.
A Turning Point in the Case
The licensing decision represents a significant turning point in the broader dispute. For more than a year, Epps was subjected, according to counsel, to public smears, internal scrutiny, and escalating administrative measures that called her credibility and professional standing into question.
The outcome before the licensing authority is important because it shows what happens when the record is reviewed in an independent forum rather than through the institutional lens of the NYPD. There, the Department’s narrative did not control the result.
More broadly, the determination underscores a basic point that will remain central to the litigation ahead: retaliation, reputational attacks, and bureaucratic pressure do not erase documents, sworn testimony, or governing legal standards.
Continuing Legal Developments
Although the licensing decision represents a significant development, the legal issues surrounding the Epps matter remain unresolved. Claims under review include quid pro quo sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and retaliation under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws; wage theft and unlawful clawback under the New York Labor Law; gender-motivated violence under the New York City Gender-Motivated Violence Act; and other related claims arising from the Department’s alleged retaliatory conduct. Questions also remain regarding the destruction, removal, or alteration of evidence related to the alleged misconduct inside NYPD Headquarters. Those issues are expected to be examined through litigation, discovery, and sworn testimony.
A Broader Question of Accountability
The Epps matter reaches beyond the circumstances of a single retired lieutenant. It raises a larger question about accountability inside a police department where the alleged misconduct, according to counsel, reaches the highest levels of command.
In that setting, the credibility of internal oversight is not a peripheral issue. It is central. When complaints involve sexual misconduct, retaliation, and abuse of official power, the public must be able to trust that investigative systems will pursue the facts rather than protect the institution.
For that reason, the licensing decision carries meaning beyond the restoration of an individual right. It reflects that the issues surrounding Epps’s treatment can be evaluated in a forum governed by law, evidence, and independent review—not by the internal politics of One Police Plaza.
Looking Ahead
The factual and legal record in the Epps matter continues to develop. As litigation and investigative processes move forward, additional evidence is expected to clarify both the scope of the Department’s actions and the motives behind them. What is already clear, however, is that administrative retaliation cannot permanently bury documentary evidence, sworn testimony, or legal rights. Facts survive politics. Documents survive narratives. And the truth has a way of surfacing under oath.
Media Contact
Eric Sanders, Esq.
The Sanders Firm, P.C.
30 Wall Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10005
(212) 652-2782
www.thesandersfirmpc.com