FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Civil-Rights Lawsuit Alleges NYSP’s Own Investigative and Disciplinary Records Contradict Its Claim That the Process Was Neutral and Nondiscriminatory
NEW YORK, NY — September 9, 2026 — A former New York State Trooper has filed a civil-rights lawsuit in New York Supreme Court alleging that the New York State Police used its internal investigative and disciplinary system selectively against an Asian-American trooper of Chinese national origin and then defended that process to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission through factual characterizations that the lawsuit alleges are contradicted or materially undermined by NYSP’s own records.
The action follows an EEOC Charge of Discrimination filed in March 2026 challenging race discrimination, national-origin discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, and unequal treatment arising from the investigation and disciplinary process that culminated in the trooper’s September 18, 2025 termination. The new lawsuit moves that dispute into New York Supreme Court under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law and places the underlying investigative records, comparator evidence, disciplinary decisions, witness handling, union representation, and NYSP’s September 4, 2026 EEOC Position Statement directly at issue.
The Verified Complaint alleges that the case is not simply about whether NYSP had authority to discipline one of its members. The central issue is whether the agency exercised that authority equally. According to the pleading, discrimination operated through a series of discretionary decision points: who became an investigative target, how broadly an investigation expanded, what questions were asked during compelled interrogation, what evidence was pursued, how charges were formulated, whether economic pressure was imposed during the disciplinary process, how favorable witnesses were handled, whether mitigation was meaningfully pursued, and what penalty was ultimately selected.
NYSP’s September 4 EEOC Response Becomes Part of the Case
On September 4, 2026, NYSP submitted a sixteen-page Position Statement to the EEOC denying that the former trooper had been subjected to discrimination, retaliation, or a hostile work environment and asking that the administrative Charge be dismissed. By that time, according to the Verified Complaint, NYSP possessed the complete Professional Standards Bureau investigation, the compelled-interrogation record, the original and amended Charges and Specifications, the disciplinary-hearing record, the Hearing Board findings, the Superintendent’s termination determination, witness-related correspondence, and the disciplinary materials the agency itself chose to use in addressing comparator evidence.
The lawsuit alleges that NYSP’s Position Statement did more than deny liability. It allegedly presented materially incomplete, misleading, or selective characterizations concerning the investigation, comparator treatment, witness evidence, disciplinary procedures, and the reasons for termination. NYSP asserted to the EEOC that the former trooper’s objections amounted largely to disagreement with how the investigation was conducted and argued that differences in investigative questioning did not establish discrimination. The lawsuit responds that NYSP’s own investigative records make those differences materially relevant because the same investigation expanded to numerous other Troop NYC members.
The Comparator Records Are Central
According to the Verified Complaint, NYSP’s Administrative Investigation Report identified numerous additional Troop NYC members in connection with the same investigation, including Matthew Lipke, German Tyuryayev, Evantz Charmant, Sean Kim, Brandon Rasado, Manuel Ortiz, Anthony Rawlins, Paul Cardona, Michael Olivieri, and Vincent Peluso. The complaint alleges that Lipke was initially questioned as a witness, admitted that he had not partnered with his assigned partner, and was then converted into a target. NYSP thereafter conducted a 60-day review involving Troop NYC Zone 3 personnel. The pleading further alleges that Tyuryayev admitted failing to partner on several occasions, including while working overtime and taking no enforcement action.
The lawsuit alleges that these members provide an obvious contemporaneous comparison group because they arose from the same investigative environment and were investigated by overlapping personnel. Yet, according to the complaint, NYSP’s EEOC response did not meaningfully explain the investigative treatment, charging decisions, disciplinary dispositions, or continued employment status of those members. Instead, NYSP selected former Trooper Peter A. Steixner as the comparator it considered most relevant and criticized the former trooper’s comparator evidence in part because race and national-origin information for several members remained incomplete. The complaint alleges that this argument is particularly significant because NYSP itself controls the underlying personnel and disciplinary records necessary to make those comparisons.
The lawsuit therefore rejects a narrow comparator analysis limited to whether another trooper was also terminated under a similarly labeled rule violation. It alleges that the proper inquiry must examine how discretion was exercised throughout the entire disciplinary pipeline: who was escalated, how broadly each investigation proceeded, how questioning was conducted, how evidence was developed, what charges were selected or stacked, whether negotiated or lesser dispositions were available, and what sanction was ultimately imposed.
Punishment Through Process
The complaint also alleges that the disciplinary process itself became a source of economic and procedural pressure.
The former trooper alleges that Division Counsel David J. Szalda scheduled his disciplinary hearing while his assigned PBA attorney was unavailable, that he was pressured to proceed with substitute counsel he had never met, and that subsequent scheduling decisions prolonged his unpaid status. He further alleges that his request to use accrued annual leave to preserve income and health coverage for his wife and children was denied without identification of written authority supporting that denial.
NYSP told the EEOC that applicable procedures were followed concerning scheduling, suspension, pay status, and annual leave. The Verified Complaint alleges, however, that the Position Statement did not identify the written procedure authorizing the challenged scheduling sequence, the basis for selecting dates that allegedly triggered or prolonged unpaid status, or the written policy supporting the denial of annual leave.
Favorable Witnesses and Late-Night Escalation
The lawsuit also challenges NYSP’s handling of favorable witness evidence.
According to the Verified Complaint, after the former trooper requested favorable statements from Chinese-speaking family witnesses on July 2, 2025, Captain Joshua E. Stahl and Sergeant Tatiana I. Wilson appeared without advance notice at his New Jersey family residence later that night, awakened and alarmed his family, and directed him to report to SP Manhattan while he remained suspended without pay. Amended disciplinary charges were then served.
NYSP characterized the episode to the EEOC as an attempt to serve the trooper where personnel believed he resided before arranging service at a State Police facility. The lawsuit alleges that this description omitted the circumstances actually challenged: the approximately 9:45 p.m. appearance at the residence, the approximately 11:30 p.m. report to SP Manhattan, his unpaid status, and the fact that the events occurred only hours after he requested favorable witness evidence.
The complaint similarly contests NYSP’s assertion that no witness statements were suppressed. It alleges that the actual issue was differential treatment: whether favorable and adverse witnesses were interviewed, recorded, memorialized, preserved, and disclosed with comparable diligence, including the treatment of favorable Chinese-language evidence.
The State Troopers PBA Is Also Named
The lawsuit names the Police Benevolent Association of the New York State Troopers, Inc., Joshua P. Kaye, and Andrew C. Davis and alleges that their liability arises from their own representational conduct, rather than merely from the actions of NYSP.
Kaye allegedly attended the compelled interrogation, represented that he would pursue mitigation with senior State Police leadership, requested and received sixteen favorable commendation and performance materials, and later admitted that he had not undertaken the negotiation he represented he would pursue. Davis allegedly warned the trooper that he was “poking the bear” while the trooper was challenging disciplinary scheduling and the economic consequences of the process.
NYSP itself emphasized in its EEOC Position Statement that the PBA is a separate labor organization whose representatives do not act for NYSP. The Verified Complaint relies on that distinction in seeking to hold the PBA defendants accountable for their own alleged discriminatory, retaliatory, and aiding-and-abetting conduct.
“The Question Is Whether NYSP’s Explanation Survives Its Own Records”
“This case is about whether the State Police’s explanation survives its own records,” said Eric Sanders, counsel for the former trooper. “NYSP told the EEOC that its disciplinary process was neutral and nondiscriminatory. The lawsuit alleges that the agency’s own investigative records identify other Troop NYC members who arose from the same investigation, while its EEOC response does not meaningfully account for how those members were investigated, charged, disciplined, or retained.”
“The issue is not whether the State Police has authority to discipline its members. It does. The issue is whether it exercises that authority equally. When discretion exists at every stage—investigation, charging, witness handling, scheduling, mitigation, representation, adjudication, and penalty selection—the civil-rights inquiry has to follow those decision points. Those records can now be tested in court.”
The lawsuit demands a jury trial and seeks relief including lost wages and benefits, compensatory damages, reinstatement or front pay where appropriate, correction or expungement of discriminatory or retaliatory employment records where legally authorized, punitive damages against defendants where legally available, attorneys’ fees, and other statutory and equitable relief.
The allegations contained in the Verified Complaint are claims by the plaintiff and have not yet been adjudicated.
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
Eric Sanders, Esq.
The Sanders Firm, P.C.
30 Wall Street, 8th Floor
New York, New York 10005
(212) 652-2782
###
Read the Verified Complaint
