FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

After nearly four decades of public service, Bronx DA employee Elizabeth Diaz alleges that she and her daughter were suspended for an authorized protective escort arrangement, jeopardizing her pension and subjecting her to three years of disciplinary probation.

New York, New York — October 15, 2026 — What happens when a public employee spends years being stalked and sexually harassed, reports the danger to her supervisors, receives permission for her daughter to escort her safely to work, and then finds herself facing disciplinary charges for that very arrangement? According to a newly filed civil-rights lawsuit, the Office of the Bronx County District Attorney responded by suspending both women for thirty days, imposing financial and pension consequences, and placing the mother under a disciplinary agreement that continues to threaten her employment after nearly four decades of public service.

In Elizabeth Diaz v. City of New York, et al., plaintiff Elizabeth Diaz accuses THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Chief Human Resources Officer DARLENE MARTINEZ, Director of Labor Relations and Discipline SEAN DILLON, and Human Resources official MELISSA POLANCO of discriminatory and retaliatory employment practices under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). At the center of the complaint is the allegation that Human Resources deliberately disregarded a protective arrangement authorized by senior supervisory personnel and transformed a stalking survivor’s attempt to remain safe into an accusation of employee misconduct.

A Neighbor’s Sexual Obsession Became Two Years of Fear, Intimidation, and Stalking

Diaz’s ordeal began in 2021, when she assisted Courtney Lindsay, a former neighbor, with information concerning an emergency rental-assistance application. What initially appeared to be an ordinary effort to help someone navigate a government assistance program allegedly developed into a disturbing pattern of sexual obsession, unwanted communications, and intimidation. By December 2021, Lindsay was repeatedly contacting Diaz and her daughter, sending sexually graphic text messages, making unwanted propositions, and attempting to communicate through different telephone numbers after his earlier numbers were blocked.

The communications were explicit. Lindsay repeatedly commented upon Diaz’s body, described sexual acts he wanted to perform, and sent unsolicited photographs depicting sexual activity. In one message, he wrote, “I really love the size of your ass.” In another, he asked, “Would you let me dick your ass?” Other messages contained graphic descriptions of oral and anal sexual activity. Lindsay also asked Diaz when she left work, a particularly disturbing question because he knew where she lived and had already demonstrated an unwillingness to respect her attempts to end contact.

This was not an isolated offensive remark or a misunderstanding between acquaintances. According to the complaint, Lindsay’s conduct continued for approximately two years, notwithstanding Diaz’s repeated efforts to block his communications and obtain assistance from law enforcement. The persistent sexual demands, unsolicited images, and repeated contacts left Diaz fearful that his obsession would eventually escalate into a physical confrontation or sexual assault. She began experiencing anxiety, interrupted sleep, emotional distress, and difficulty performing ordinary activities without anticipating another unwanted encounter.

The harassment was documented through NYPD investigative records, preserved telephone communications, and a sworn Criminal Court Information. Investigators identified at least forty unwanted calls or text messages between May 10, 2022, and December 28, 2023, notwithstanding Diaz’s express demand that Lindsay stop contacting her. The communications included degrading sexual propositions, explicit descriptions of oral and anal sexual activity, and unsolicited pornographic photographs. Lindsay was arrested on January 4, 2024, and charged with aggravated harassment in the second degree, two counts of stalking in the fourth degree, stalking in the third degree, and harassment in the second degree. The criminal investigation corroborated the seriousness of the circumstances Diaz had repeatedly reported to her supervisors.

Management Recognized the Danger. Human Resources Allegedly Turned the Protection Into Misconduct.

The lawsuit makes an important distinction between the supervisory personnel who attempted to assist Diaz and the Human Resources officials responsible for the challenged disciplinary proceedings. Beginning in January 2022, Diaz repeatedly reported Lindsay’s conduct to Chief of Detective Investigators Frank Chiara and Deputy Chief of Detective Investigators Terence Mulderrig. Other supervisory personnel also became aware of the stalking, the sexually explicit communications, and Diaz’s continuing fear for her personal safety.

According to the complaint, Chiara and Mulderrig recognized the seriousness of the circumstances and verbally authorized an arrangement permitting Diaz’s adult daughter, who also worked for the Bronx District Attorney’s Office but was assigned to another building, to escort her mother to her workstation. The purpose was straightforward. Diaz feared being confronted or attacked while entering her workplace, and her daughter wanted to ensure that she reached her desk safely. The supervisors knew why the arrangement was necessary and permitted it.

Nevertheless, in March 2025, the Office accused both Diaz and her daughter of abuse of time and leave arising from those escorts and imposed thirty-day suspensions upon both employees. Diaz alleges that Human Resources, under the authority of MARTINEZ, ignored the protective purpose of the arrangement and the authorization previously provided by management. The complaint challenges the characterization of the escorts as stolen time, alleging that the disciplinary accusations were pretextual and that the Office punished conduct undertaken in response to a documented threat.

The distinction is not trivial. Employers have legitimate interests in maintaining attendance requirements and ensuring that employees perform their assigned duties. But the question presented by Diaz’s lawsuit is whether an employer may authorize a protective workplace arrangement for an employee facing a known stalker, then disregard that authorization and punish both employees for participating in it. According to Diaz, that is precisely what occurred.

Thirty Days Without Pay Was Only the Beginning. Her Pension Was Affected Too.

Diaz began working for the Bronx District Attorney’s Office in March 1988. By the time of the March 2025 suspension, she was approximately fifty-seven years old and had accumulated nearly four decades of public service, substantial institutional experience, and significant pension and retirement interests. The complaint alleges that the suspension deprived her of compensation and adversely affected her pension benefits, creating consequences extending beyond the immediate loss of thirty days’ wages.

The lawsuit further alleges that Diaz’s age, accumulated service, and proximity to retirement contributed to the disciplinary decisions. Those allegations place the suspension within a broader employment-discrimination dispute concerning the financial vulnerability of an older employee approaching retirement. Diaz contends that the Office imposed punitive measures affecting employment and retirement interests she had spent decades acquiring, notwithstanding management’s knowledge of the stalking and the authorized protective arrangement.

The financial consequences became more significant on April 30, 2025, when defendant SEAN DILLON, acting as Director of Labor Relations and Discipline under MARTINEZ’s authority, executed a Stipulation and Agreement imposing thirty-six months of disciplinary probation. The agreement required Diaz to accept responsibility for the alleged misconduct, restricted specified contractual and civil-service appeal rights, and exposed her to possible termination following subsequent findings of misconduct. It also extended disciplinary probation for medical, personal, and other absences and imposed restrictions concerning resignation and future employment with the Office.

Diaz alleges that the agreement was imposed under coercive economic and employment circumstances after she had already served the thirty-day suspension, lost compensation, and experienced adverse pension consequences. Although the agreement recited that she had been adequately represented by her union and had voluntarily accepted its terms, Diaz disputes that those representations accurately reflected the circumstances under which she faced additional disciplinary proceedings and the possible loss of employment after nearly four decades of public service. She contends that the agreement perpetuated discriminatory punishment arising from a protective arrangement previously authorized by management and imposed continuing restrictions that threatened her employment, pension benefits, and retirement security.

For Diaz, the disciplinary agreement was not simply another document placed in her personnel file. It created a continuing period during which additional allegations could threaten her employment, limit her ability to contest disciplinary decisions, and place further pressure upon her accumulated retirement interests.

The Stalking Ended. The Employment Insecurity Did Not.

According to the complaint, the effects of the disciplinary proceedings continued throughout 2025 and 2026. Diaz remained employed and continued performing substantial administrative and supervisory responsibilities, but the Last Chance Agreement remained in effect. She alleges that ordinary workplace disagreements, misunderstandings, and subsequent allegations carried heightened consequences because she could face termination under the disciplinary probationary provisions.

During 2026, MARTINEZ became involved in Diaz’s workplace complaints, temporary reassignment, and continuing disciplinary concerns, while POLANCO participated in Human Resources communications affecting her employment conditions. Diaz reported increasing anxiety, difficulty sleeping, and fear that additional allegations could be used to terminate her employment. She also sought assistance from the Office’s Director of Wellness and reported that her physician had prescribed medication for anxiety and sleep difficulties.

In August 2026, Diaz received another counseling memorandum concerning alleged personal telephone calls during working hours. She disputes the characterization of those communications, explaining that they involved exceptional personal circumstances concerning a seriously ill family member. The memorandum warned that similar conduct could result in additional corrective or disciplinary action. For an employee already subject to a Last Chance Agreement, that warning carried consequences far beyond ordinary workplace counseling.

On October 13, 2026, Diaz alleges that she received a telephone call from her union attorney advising that she faced potential termination and might have to consider retirement rather than contest additional disciplinary allegations. After nearly four decades of employment, she was confronted with the possibility of losing her position while the financial consequences of the earlier suspension and continuing risks to her retirement security remained unresolved.

When Protecting a Stalking Survivor Becomes a Disciplinary Offense, the Employer’s Conduct Deserves Examination

The lawsuit asserts nine causes of action under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL, alleging age discrimination, disability discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under both statutes, together with discrimination based upon Diaz’s status as a victim of stalking under the NYCHRL. The complaint also challenges the Office’s handling of reasonable accommodation and cooperative-dialogue obligations.

The central allegation is not that a public employee should be exempt from workplace rules because she has experienced stalking. It is that the Office allegedly authorized a protective arrangement, knew why it was necessary, and subsequently treated that same arrangement as misconduct without adequately accounting for the circumstances that prompted it. Diaz contends that the resulting suspension and Last Chance Agreement were discriminatory employment actions rather than neutral enforcement of attendance requirements.

The NYCHRL expressly protects employees who are victims of stalking, recognizing that conduct occurring outside the workplace may create legitimate employment-related safety needs. Diaz alleges that the Office failed to honor those protections and instead imposed disciplinary consequences that affected her wages, pension benefits, emotional well-being, and continued employment.

Statement From Eric Sanders, Esq.

“Elizabeth Diaz devoted nearly forty years of her life to the Bronx District Attorney’s Office. When she became the victim of a man who repeatedly sent sexually explicit messages, stalked her, and caused her to fear for her safety, her supervisors understood the problem and authorized her daughter to escort her safely to her workstation. Then Human Resources allegedly turned around and accused both women of stealing time.”

“That is an extraordinary allegation. We are talking about a daughter attempting to protect her mother from a known stalker, not two employees secretly abandoning their duties for personal convenience. The complaint alleges that management knew what was happening, authorized the arrangement, and that the Office nevertheless suspended both women.”

“What makes this especially troubling is what happened afterward. Diaz lost compensation, her pension was affected, and the Office imposed a thirty-six-month disciplinary agreement threatening her continued employment. After nearly four decades of service, she was left facing the possibility of termination or retirement under disciplinary pressure.”

“Public employers cannot treat the consequences of stalking victimization as an inconvenience to be punished while disregarding their obligations under the Human Rights Laws. We intend to hold the responsible officials accountable for the discriminatory conduct alleged in this lawsuit.”

The Relief Sought

Diaz seeks compensatory damages for lost wages, adverse pension consequences, emotional distress, and other injuries arising from the challenged employment practices. She also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, rescission of the Last Chance Agreement, correction of her disciplinary records, restoration of affected employment and retirement benefits, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and other relief permitted by law.

The allegations have not been adjudicated, and the defendants have not been found liable.

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 Summons with Verified Complaint