For Immediate Release

 

 

NEW YORK, NY — March 1, 2026, Former New York State Trooper Michael Lin, who self-identifies as Asian-American of Chinese national origin, has filed a Charge of Discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that the New York State Police subjected him to discriminatory treatment and a hostile work environment because of race (Asian) and national origin, and then used the agency’s internal investigative and disciplinary machinery as a termination-oriented pipeline rather than a neutral accountability system. Lin alleges that this pattern began years before the agency ever served formal charges—through racial hazing, racial stereotyping, and unequal treatment—and culminated in a termination decision adopted on September 18, 2025.

The Charge pleads a continuing course of discriminatory conduct from January 2019 through September 18, 2025, including alleged racially biased humiliations, racially charged workplace nicknames, selective escalation of investigation tactics, and a punitive charging strategy that treated Lin as an outlier worthy of dismissal even where the agency has historically imposed serious discipline short of termination in other cases. Lin’s filing is anchored around a central concept: when discipline is discretionary and opaque, discrimination does not need to be explicit; it can be operational—embedded in decision points.

The Core Allegation: Discretion as the Delivery Mechanism for Discrimination

Lin alleges that the New York State Police discipline system concentrates power in discretionary decision points—who gets escalated to “target” status, what is treated as “serious,” how allegations are framed, how charges are stacked, how credibility is weighed, and what penalty is ultimately imposed. Lin’s filing does not simply contest that discipline occurred; it challenges how discretion was exercised and why the agency’s “maximum outcome” was selected when less severe outcomes have historically been available and repeatedly used for other members accused of serious misconduct.

The Charge frames the case as a governance dispute over the integrity of the investigative and disciplinary pipeline itself. Lin alleges that the agency’s approach followed a predictable progression: selective escalation at the investigation stage, including coercive framing during a compelled statement; expansive charging and charge-stacking, including multiple counts derived from overlapping theories tied to the same factual nucleus; procedural manipulation, including scheduling decisions that allegedly triggered prolonged unpaid status; suppression of favorable witnesses and delay tactics, and finally adjudication and termination.

Lin’s case, he alleges, is not a neutral example of discipline applied after misconduct. It is an example of discipline constructed to deliver termination—through the deliberate use of investigatory posture, charging choices, and process leverage.

Early Evidence of Racial Bias: Academy Hazing and the Normalization of Humiliation

Lin pleads that he witnessed racially biased humiliations within the State Police culture as early as the Academy stage. In January 2019, Lin alleges that Division staff humiliated another Asian recruit, Trooper Santisouk J. Rasaphone, on his birthday by forcing him to wear a balloon on his wrist throughout the entire day, including during physical training runs around the University at Albany in public view. Lin alleges the incident was treated as a joke within the institutional environment, but that it functioned as a targeted humiliation—one not imposed on other recruits, including white recruits who had birthdays around the same time.

Lin pleads this incident not as a standalone grievance, but as a revealing data point: a culture where racialized humiliation is tolerated in training can evolve into a culture where racialized discretion is tolerated in discipline.

Workplace Stereotyping: “Rush Hour 3” and the Weaponization of “Jokes”

Lin further alleges that while assigned to SP Liberty in 2022, he was subjected to racially charged stereotyping, including being called “Rush Hour 3,” a nickname he alleges mocked his Asian identity by invoking a pop-culture trope of an Asian and Black law-enforcement duo. Lin alleges that while presented as humor, the nickname carried racial undertones that made him uncomfortable and signaled his “outsider” status in a predominantly white policing culture.

Lin alleges he did not report the conduct because he feared retaliation and believed that the agency has a reputation for punishing members who complain about discrimination. His Charge pleads that fear as part of the hostile work environment: an institution where members internalize the risk of retaliation is an institution where discrimination can persist without formal reporting—particularly where internal systems are discretionary and insulated from transparency.

August 2024: Arrest, Dismissal, and the Re-Activation of Residency as a Punitive Tool

According to the Charge, the transition from cultural hostility to institutional escalation occurred in August 2024. Lin alleges he was arrested in New Jersey on August 10, 2024, and that the criminal matter was later dismissed on May 19, 2025. Lin alleges that despite dismissal, the Division initiated and escalated a residency-focused investigation against him—despite the fact that he had been previously vetted and cleared years earlier. The Charge alleges that residency enforcement became a selective tool used to justify termination, rather than a neutral eligibility check applied consistently.

Lin’s core allegation is that the Division did not treat residency as a routine administrative issue. It treated it as an integrity weapon—an instrument that could be reframed and amplified to support a termination-grade outcome, even after dismissal of the underlying criminal case.

October 1, 2024: The “Target” Interview and a Compelled Statement Framed Toward Self-Incrimination

The Charge alleges that on October 1, 2024, Lin was brought in for a compelled “Target” statement at the Professional Standards Bureau in Fishkill beginning at 10:12 a.m. Lin alleges the investigators were Lieutenants Gregory Lischak and Ross Hansen, and Captain Steven Koveleskie, and that union representation was present through PBA representative Joshua Kaye and PBA attorney John Tuppen.

Lin alleges that Captain Koveleskie asked him directly whether he had “violated any rules or regulations” before any formal charges were served, and when Lin did not understand the question, Koveleskie rephrased it in a manner Lin alleges guided him toward self-incrimination. Lin alleges that union representation failed to intervene and protect his rights. He also alleges that other troopers investigated by the same officers were not subjected to the same incriminating framing question—an allegation central to his claim that he was treated differently within the investigative process.

Lin further alleges that after the compelled statement, Joshua Kaye advised him that negotiations would occur with senior leadership and requested anything useful to support negotiations; Lin alleges he provided sixteen letters of commendation and performance information, including that he became a top performer in DWI arrests within Troop NYC despite navigating dual NYPD/NYSP paperwork without adequate training resources. Lin alleges that he later obtained a recorded admission from union representation acknowledging that negotiations were not pursued as represented. Lin pleads this not only as unfair representation but as part of an institutional environment where the accused member—particularly a minority member—can be placed under coercive pressure without meaningful protection.

April–July 2025: Charges, Amendments, and a Termination-Oriented Charging Strategy

Lin alleges that on April 24, 2025 the Division initiated formal Charges and Specifications and served him on April 25, 2025 at SP Brooklyn. Lin further alleges that the Division issued Amended Charges and Specifications dated July 1, 2025, served on July 2, 2025 at SP Manhattan. The Charge pleads that the amended pleading strategy was not merely corrective; it was punitive and designed to preserve a termination-grade posture.

Lin’s Charge describes the nature of the allegations as a stacked package: misconduct, absence/abandonment from duty, alcohol consumption while on duty, vehicle/plate issues, residency-related violations under public officers statutes and internal rules, multiple counts framed as false filing related to employment and benefit forms, and additional counts alleging neglect of duty and conduct tending to bring discredit upon the Division. Lin alleges that rather than selecting a narrow set of charges aligned to a proportionate penalty range, the Division pursued a broad, overlapping set of counts designed to maximize the case’s termination leverage.

May–June 2025: Scheduling Manipulation and Prolonged Unpaid Status

Lin’s Charge alleges that while discipline was pending, Division Counsel David Szalda scheduled hearings in a manner that Lin alleges was retaliatory and designed to trigger prolonged unpaid status. Lin alleges that a hearing was scheduled for June 11, 2025 while the assigned PBA attorney was on pre-approved leave; that Lin was pressured to proceed with substitute counsel he had never met; and that when he objected, the hearing was moved to June 23, 2025 in a way that Lin alleges intentionally triggered a 30-day unpaid period under agency payroll procedure.

Lin further alleges that even after assigned counsel returned, the hearing was delayed again to later dates, prolonging unpaid status, and that requests to use annual leave to preserve income and health coverage for his family were denied without written policy justification. The Charge pleads this as punishment through process: using scheduling and pay mechanics to force economic pressure and weaken the accused’s ability to mount a defense.

July 2–3, 2025: Retaliation for Seeking Favorable Witnesses and Coercive Late-Night Service

The Charge alleges that Lin requested favorable witness statements on the morning of July 2, 2025 from his aunt Jane Lee and his mother Chuen Lin, and that the Division responded that same night through coercive tactics. Lin alleges that at approximately 9:45 p.m., Captain Joshua Stahl and Sergeant Tatiana Wilson arrived unannounced at his family home in Union, New Jersey, waking his children and alarming his family, without prior notice to Lin or union counsel. Lin alleges he was compelled to meet that night at SP Manhattan at approximately 11:30 p.m. while he remained in unpaid status.

Lin alleges that the timing and manner of service of amended charges were retaliatory—punishing him for seeking favorable witnesses and attempting to create a new pretext for further scrutiny. Lin further alleges that after midnight, a false email was generated at 2:18 a.m. on July 3, 2025 containing assertions Lin alleges were fabricated, including an assertion that he was observed driving a manual-transmission vehicle he cannot operate. Lin also alleges that the Division created or resurrected a memo recounting an older interaction with his aunt, that witness-recording practices were selectively applied, and that favorable witnesses were suppressed while hostile witness statements were documented rapidly.

Lin alleges that grievance mechanisms were also delayed, impairing his ability to obtain internal relief before the hearing.

September 2025: Hearing Irregularities and Termination

Lin’s Charge alleges that the disciplinary hearing took place on September 10–11, 2025. He alleges that objections related to cross-examination and evidentiary fairness were overruled, that hearsay evidence was admitted, and that Division Counsel questioned Lin’s wife on irrelevant and emotionally abusive topics, including alleged infidelity. Lin alleges that witnesses were adjusted or removed after rebuttal evidence emerged, and that these decisions deprived him of a fair opportunity to confront testimony and present context.

Lin’s Charge pleads that the Hearing Board issued findings and recommendations on September 17, 2025 recommending termination, and that on September 18, 2025 Superintendent Steven G. James adopting the findings and imposing termination effective immediately.

The Mungeer Anchor: A Major Comparator Showing “Negotiated Mercy” Versus Selective Termination

A central comparator in Lin’s Charge is the Thomas H. Mungeer matter—because it is contemporaneous, integrity-driven, and exposes how discretion operates differently depending on who is in the frame. Lin alleges that Mungeer’s case illustrates a pathway of negotiated mercy for a high-severity breach of trust, while Lin—an Asian trooper—was routed through a termination-oriented internal process that offered no comparable off-ramp.

The chronology is straightforward and powerful. On January 10, 2023, State Police investigators executed a search warrant at the headquarters of the New York State Troopers PBA as part of an ongoing investigation into past wrongdoing by former union leadership. Mungeer submitted retirement paperwork with an effective date of October 1, 2025. On October 24, 2025, State Police arrested Mungeer and charged him with Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, a felony theft offense tied to alleged misappropriation of union funds during his tenure as PBA president. And on January 6, 2026, an Albany County Court disposition permitted Mungeer to plead to felony grand larceny after admitting theft of $25,621, under a negotiated structure that allows the felony plea to be withdrawn and replaced with a misdemeanor petit larceny plea after one year of interim probation, alongside restitution and the forfeiture of police credentials.

Lin pleads this as more than a headline. He pleads it as a case study in institutional discretion: a high-severity, multi-year integrity breach resolved through a negotiated pathway designed to minimize long-term consequences, contrasted with Lin’s internal discipline pipeline culminating in termination on September 18, 2025—without any comparable probationary resolution, negotiated reduction, or structured path to a lesser outcome.

Lin further alleges that the Mungeer disposition is not merely lenient—it is strategically engineered. Under New York’s public pension framework, pension forfeiture is not automatic; it is pursued through a post-conviction mechanism under Article V, § 7 of the New York Constitution and RSSL Article 3-B. In that legal context, a negotiated structure that permits withdrawal of a felony plea and substitution of a misdemeanor plea after interim probation functions as a pathway to mitigate or avoid pension-forfeiture exposure that can attach to a final felony conviction and sentence. Lin pleads this as the clearest comparator of all: when the institution wants to preserve options, it can; when it wants to terminate, it can design the process to get there.

Why This Comparator Matters to the EEOC Investigation

Lin’s Charge asks the EEOC to examine whether the same discretionary power that produced negotiated mercy in the Mungeer matter was applied to Lin in the opposite direction—selective escalation, stacked charges, process pressure, and a termination-grade outcome. Lin’s position is that the difference is not explained by neutral standards; it is explained by who the accused is, and whether race and national origin operated as impermissible factors in the investigation, charging, adjudication, and penalty selection.

What Lin Seeks

Lin is requesting that the EEOC investigate the New York State Police’s discipline system as applied to him, including the investigation posture, charging and amendment decisions, scheduling and unpaid-status mechanisms, witness handling and evidentiary decisions, and the ultimate penalty selection. He seeks make-whole relief and agency-level corrective action to prevent the discipline system from functioning as discretionary theater in which outcomes depend on who the accused is, rather than what the evidence supports.

Statement from Counsel

“Equal justice cannot exist outside the agency if unequal treatment is tolerated inside it,” Eric Sanders counsel for Michael Lin said. “This Charge is not just about a termination. It is about a discipline pipeline that, in Mr. Lin’s case, appears to have been engineered to deliver a predetermined outcome—termination—through coercive investigation tactics, punitive charge stacking, and process manipulation. We are asking the EEOC to follow the decision points, test the comparator outcomes, and determine whether race and national origin operated as impermissible factors.”

Media and Public Information

About The Sanders Firm, P.C.

Founded by civil-rights attorney Eric Sanders, The Sanders Firm, P.C. is a New York–based law firm concentrating on civil-rights, employment, and police-accountability litigation. The firm is known for handling complex cases involving racial discrimination, due-process violations, and institutional abuse of power, particularly where government actions undermine constitutional and civil-service protections.

The allegations set forth in the Charge are claims only and have not yet been adjudicated.

###

 

Read the EEOC Charge of Discrimination