Former East Hampton Officer Andrea M. Kess Sues Town and PBA, Alleging They Punished Her for Opposing Discrimination While Protecting Male Officers Accused of Serious Misconduct

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Verified Complaint alleges the Town and PBA transformed protected EEOC-related disclosures into union discipline, departmental charges, and termination while male officers accused of serious misconduct were allegedly retained, promoted, protected, or disciplined far less harshly.

New York, N.Y.  — June 3, 2026 — Eric Sanders, Esq., of The Sanders Firm, P.C. announced today that former East Hampton Town Police Officer ANDREA M. KESS has filed a retaliation lawsuit alleging that the Town of East Hampton, senior police officials, members of the East Hampton Town Board, the East Hampton Town Police Benevolent Association, and individual PBA officials punished her for opposing discrimination, challenging the Town’s EEOC Position Statement, preserving evidence, and disclosing evidence in support of protected civil-rights claims.

The lawsuit, filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk, asserts claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the Suffolk County Human Rights Law. It alleges that after Kess opposed gender discrimination, hostile work environment, discriminatory denial of advancement, disparate treatment, and retaliation within the East Hampton Town Police Department, defendants escalated against her rather than correcting the unlawful practices she challenged.

According to the Verified Complaint, Kess was employed as a police officer by the Town of East Hampton and was also a dues-paying member of the East Hampton Town Police Benevolent Association. The complaint alleges that she engaged in protected activity by filing EEOC charges, submitting internal retaliation complaints, opposing the Town’s administrative submissions, preserving and disclosing evidence, objecting to retaliatory union discipline, and pursuing legal and administrative remedies.

The complaint alleges that the retaliatory sequence began with the Town’s response to Kess’s original Charge of Discrimination before the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Kess alleges that the Town, through Chief of Police MICHAEL D. SARLO and/or its agents, submitted a Position Statement that was not merely a defensive administrative filing, but a retaliatory instrument containing false, misleading, materially incomplete, and punitive assertions designed to discredit her, justify prior discriminatory conduct, intimidate witnesses, and create a narrative later used against her.

After Kess challenged the Town’s Position Statement, filed additional protected complaints, and disclosed evidence in support of her discrimination and retaliation claims, the complaint alleges that the PBA and the Town initiated separate but overlapping disciplinary processes against her. Kess alleges that those processes were coordinated in timing, structure, and purpose.

A central allegation in the lawsuit is that neither the PBA disciplinary process nor the Town disciplinary process accused Kess of submitting false, forged, fabricated, or malicious information to the EEOC. Instead, the Verified Complaint alleges that defendants disciplined her for the act of disclosing, publishing, preserving, and relying upon communications and evidence in connection with her protected discrimination and retaliation activity.

The PBA disciplinary process allegedly resulted in a six-month suspension from union membership rights and participation. Kess alleges that this suspension impaired her access to union protection, union participation, internal remedial channels, collective support mechanisms, and potential witness support during ongoing administrative and legal proceedings.

The Town disciplinary process allegedly converted Kess’s protected opposition activity, EEOC-related conduct, and evidentiary disclosures into alleged misconduct. According to the complaint, the Town disciplinary charges specifically referenced Kess’s protected activity and the publication of her internal retaliation complaint and related materials on a website maintained by her counsel. Kess alleges that the Town used confidentiality, informant-integrity, recording, publication, and conduct-unbecoming theories to recharacterize protected discrimination-related activity as punishable misconduct.

The disciplinary hearing proceeded before Hearing Officer Robert J. Ponzini. The complaint alleges that the Town’s process was hostile in tone, structure, and administration, and that it failed to meaningfully separate legitimate workplace discipline from protected opposition activity. Kess alleges that the disciplinary process accepted or credited the retaliatory premise that her protected discrimination-related conduct could be treated as misconduct.

On April 1, 2025, the East Hampton Town Board adopted Resolution 2025-486 and terminated Kess’s employment effective immediately. The Verified Complaint names Town Board members KATHEE BURKE-GONZALEZ, DAVID LYS, CATE ROGERS, THOMAS FLIGHT, and IAN CALDER-PIEDMONTE, along with Chief MICHAEL D. SARLO, Captain CHRISTOPHER ANDERSON, the PBA, and individual PBA officials.

The lawsuit presents a direct question of public accountability: whether a municipal police department and police union may treat protected discrimination-related evidence as punishable misconduct while allegedly tolerating, minimizing, or failing to impose termination-level discipline on male officers and supervisors accused of serious misconduct. Kess alleges that this double standard reveals not neutral discipline, but selective enforcement and retaliation.

The Verified Complaint identifies alleged comparator misconduct involving integrity-related violations, falsification, excessive force, firearm-related misconduct, intoxication, domestic-violence-related allegations, public-safety misconduct, and off-duty misconduct. Kess alleges that male officers and union members accused of such conduct were retained, promoted, protected, ignored, or disciplined far less harshly.

Among other alleged comparators, the complaint references officers accused of on-duty intoxication, illegal or improper firearm-related conduct, disabling recording systems, making false communications or records, excessive force, domestic-violence-related misconduct, DWI-related misconduct, and conduct allegedly implicating criminal-process integrity. Kess alleges that these officers were retained, promoted, given predetermined discipline, or otherwise treated less harshly, while she was suspended from union membership rights and terminated for conduct tied directly to protected discrimination-related activity.

The complaint also references sworn testimony and sworn affidavit material from the pending federal Kess litigation. Kess alleges that this material disclosed additional previously unknown or uncharged serious misconduct, sexual misconduct, and potential criminal behavior involving male officers or supervisors who, upon information and belief, were retained and not subjected to termination-level discipline.

The Verified Complaint does not assert separate claims on behalf of those witnesses. Instead, Kess pleads those incidents as evidence of notice, tolerated misconduct, selective enforcement, retaliatory motive, comparator treatment, and pretext. The complaint alleges that sworn testimony and affidavit material are relevant because they show a departmental culture in which serious male misconduct could be minimized or ignored, while Kess’s protected opposition activity was converted into a basis for discipline and termination.

“This case is about institutional retaliation dressed up as discipline,” said Eric Sanders, attorney for Kess and owner of The Sanders Firm, P.C. “The complaint alleges that East Hampton officials and PBA actors did not punish Andrea Kess because she fabricated evidence or submitted false material to the EEOC. They punished her because she opposed discrimination, challenged a retaliatory Position Statement, preserved evidence, disclosed evidence, and continued asserting protected rights.”

Sanders added: “The comparator evidence matters because it exposes the disciplinary double standard. Male officers accused of serious misconduct were allegedly retained, protected, ignored, or treated far less harshly, while Kess was suspended from union rights and terminated for conduct tied directly to protected discrimination-related activity. That is the core of the retaliation claim.”

The lawsuit asserts claims for retaliation, aiding and abetting retaliation, interference with protected rights, impairment of remedial access, selective enforcement, and pretextual discipline under the New York State Human Rights Law and the Suffolk County Human Rights Law.

Kess seeks compensatory damages, back pay, front pay, lost benefits, lost pension-related compensation, lost promotional and employment opportunities, damages for emotional distress and reputational harm, restoration of union rights, expungement or correction of retaliatory disciplinary records, attorneys’ fees, costs, interest, and other relief deemed just and proper by the Court.

All defendants are presumed to deny liability unless and until otherwise determined by the Court. The allegations in the Verified Complaint remain allegations.

About The Sanders Firm, P.C.

The Sanders Firm, P.C. is a New York-based law firm focused on civil rights, immigration, employment discrimination, police misconduct, and other high-stakes matters. Its founder and president, Eric Sanders, Esq., is a retired NYPD officer who brings a rare inside perspective to the intersection of government power, public institutions, enforcement discretion, and constitutional accountability.

For more than twenty years, Sanders has counseled thousands of clients and handled complex matters involving police use of force, sexual harassment, retaliation, systemic discrimination, immigration consequences, and related civil-rights violations. He is widely recognized as a leading New York civil-rights attorney and a prominent voice on evidence-based policing, institutional accountability, equal justice, and rights-based immigration advocacy.

Media Contact