FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The lawsuit alleges that the NYPD converted a Black executive’s caregiving authorization into criminal misconduct, manipulated Smith’s retirement eligibility, and used her service pension to compel withdrawal of two EEOC Charges.

New York, NY — August 27, 2026 — Eric Sanders, Esq. The Sanders Firm, P.C., has commenced an action in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, on behalf of retired NYPD Detective Specialist JAENICE SMITH against THE CITY OF NEW YORK, the NEW YORK CITY POLICE PENSION FUND, the DETECTIVES ENDOWMENT ASSOCIATION, and individual NYPD and Pension Fund officials.

The Verified Complaint alleges race and gender discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, labor-organization discrimination, and individual aiding and abetting under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.

The action follows the October 6, 2025 announcement that SMITH had filed separate EEOC Charges against the City and Pension Fund after the NYPD converted a command-authorized caregiving accommodation into a criminal-style disciplinary prosecution and altered her retirement eligibility shortly before she completed twenty years of service.

SMITH has now secured her service pension and retired. But she did so only after, according to the complaint, the NYPD used that pension as leverage to obtain guilty pleas, sweeping releases, substantial financial forfeitures, compelled retirement, and withdrawal of both EEOC Charges through a legally defective post-trial settlement.

From Command Authorization to Criminal Prosecution

SMITH joined the NYPD on July 11, 2005, and was promoted to Detective Specialist on December 22, 2017. In February 2024, then-Assistant Chief Scott M. Henderson authorized her to remain home and care for her mother, Barbara Ann Smith, who was dying from Stage IV cervical cancer.

Henderson directed that SMITH be accounted for in the Department’s attendance system. Lieutenant Latisha M. Witten, Sergeants Jun Fong and Donovan Hunt, Police Officer Wilson Richards, and other command members implemented that directive.

SMITH did not create the attendance entries, control payroll, conceal her location, or receive an instruction rescinding Henderson’s authorization. She remained in communication with the command while caring for her mother, who died on December 6, 2024.

Under Police Commissioner JESSICA S. TISCH, the Department later recast Henderson’s directive as a “paid no-show job” and initiated a criminal-style investigation. The complaint alleges that EDWARD A. THOMPSON exercised senior authority over the Internal Affairs Bureau; JAMES D. BERK directed or participated in surveillance, financial inquiries, social-media review, “pattern of life” analysis, and a proposed camera canvass at SMITH’s home “under a ruse that a crime was committed”; and DAWIT FIKRU certified a secret subpoena seeking approximately sixteen months of SMITH’s private telephone records.

FIKRU later signed six Charges and Specifications, which JOSEPH A. DiBARTOLOMEO endorsed. SMITH was threatened with termination and financial ruin even though the Department produced no witness at or above Henderson’s rank who identified a written limitation upon his authority or testified that SMITH knew his directive was invalid.

The Department Trial Exposed the Racialized Theory

SMITH’s disciplinary trial proceeded on November 5, 2025. DAVID H. GREEN prosecuted the case and demanded her termination.

According to the complaint, GREEN repeatedly replaced the word “accommodation” with “arrangement,” suggesting that the authorization reflected a personal favor, secret side deal, or improper relationship between a Black Assistant Chief and a Black female subordinate. He characterized SMITH’s caregiving accommodation as a “paid no-show job,” accused her of stealing from the people of New York City, and treated her gratitude to Henderson as an “admission of guilt.”

After SMITH raised race and gender discrimination, GREEN called the allegations “outrageous,” “appalling,” “contemptable,” “offensive,” “insulting,” “desperate,” and “unbecoming.” He accused counsel of employing “well-worn techniques” and dismissed the discrimination theory as a “weak attempt” to avoid responsibility.

Yet GREEN’s own post-trial submission conceded the central facts: Henderson told SMITH that she could remain home, “do whatever she needed to do to care for her mother,” and “not worry about work”; Henderson considered the directive an accommodation; Henderson directed that SMITH be accounted for each workday; supervisors implemented that instruction; and Henderson understood that SMITH relied upon his authority.

The parties submitted post-trial memoranda on November 8 and November 12, 2025. The Trial Commissioner issued no finding of guilt, credibility determination, report, recommendation, or penalty decision before the Department pursued settlement.

The Pension Became the Leverage

Before trial, the Pension Fund repeatedly changed its treatment of the same period of service. The complaint alleges that KEVIN HOLLORAN first classified the period as leave without pay, corrected it to leave with pay, and then reinstated leave without pay after disciplinary charges were issued.

Without an adjudication, Pension Fund Board determination, or hearing, SMITH’s equated date was changed from July 11, 2005 to August 24, 2006, postponing her retirement eligibility until August 23, 2026.

Shortly after the post-trial submissions, Assistant Trial Commissioner JEFF S. ADLER and GREEN met with SMITH and her counsel in an empty trial room to negotiate a disposition. TAREK A. RAHMAN remained involved through the Department Advocate’s Office.

The resulting agreement required SMITH to plead guilty, surrender 872 hours, forfeit all remaining accrued time and leave, pay $40,105.15 in restitution through 2031, lose pensionable service, accept dismissal probation, retire, execute sweeping releases, and withdraw her pending proceedings. The disposition also resulted in the denial of an unrestricted retired NYPD identification card, Good-Guy Letter, pistol-license documentation, and H.R. 218 certification.

Although SMITH’s counsel repeatedly raised the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act, ADLER, GREEN, and RAHMAN refused to include its mandatory protections. TISCH approved the agreement on December 3, 2025. Six days later, SMITH withdrew both EEOC Charges solely to secure the service pension upon which she depended.

The Settlement Could Not Create Legal Authority

The lawsuit alleges that the agreement is unenforceable under the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act and independently exceeds the Commissioner’s statutory authority under New York City Administrative Code § 14-115.

Section 14-115 permits specified disciplinary penalties “on conviction” and expressly provides that “no more than thirty days’ salary shall be forfeited or deducted for any offense.” SMITH had not been convicted through the Department trial when the agreement was negotiated.

The complaint alleges that TISCH’s approval could not create authority to deduct 872 hours, confiscate every remaining leave balance, impose a restitution program payable to the NYPD through 2031, destroy pensionable service, compel retirement, or impose collateral restrictions upon retirement credentials.

New York courts have long held that the Police Commissioner’s broad disciplinary discretion remains confined by statute. In Dubins v. City of New York, 177 Misc. 675, 676–77, 31 N.Y.S.2d 390 (Mun. Ct., Bronx Cnty. 1941), the court held that the Commissioner was “entirely without power” to withhold a police officer’s salary except as authorized by law and that an officer could not waive statutorily fixed compensation through agreement or conduct.

SMITH’s signature therefore could not confer authority the Legislature withheld.

The Disparity Is the Case

Henderson accepted a negotiated disposition and retired with his service pension, remaining accrued time, and terminal leave. Witten, Fong, and Hunt were not subjected to SMITH’s cumulative combination of trial, 872-hour deduction, total leave forfeiture, pension destruction, restitution, compelled retirement, EEOC withdrawals, and collateral retirement restrictions.

The complaint also identifies reported timekeeping and serious-misconduct matters involving other NYPD employees who allegedly received negotiated dispositions, limited forfeitures, resignation, retirement, or no publicly identifiable final penalty.

Only SMITH—the lowest-ranking principal participant and the only Black woman—was driven through trial and subjected to the most destructive known combination of employment, financial, pension, civil-rights, and retirement consequences.

The DEA’s Role

The Detectives Endowment Association represented SMITH throughout the investigation and initial settlement negotiations. The complaint alleges that the DEA knew she was challenging the alteration of her service date and the Department’s treatment of Henderson’s authorization.

After DEA representative Jim Moschella communicated with RAHMAN concerning a proposed disposition, the union did not meaningfully challenge the discriminatory treatment, pension pressure, or materially different outcomes imposed upon SMITH. The complaint alleges that the DEA permitted race and gender to influence the representation and protection it provided to a Black female member.

Statement from Eric Sanders, Esq.

“This case is no longer merely about what the NYPD tried to do to one detective before retirement. It is about a disciplinary system that treats statutory boundaries as optional, command authority as legitimate only when convenient, and a service pension as leverage to extinguish protected civil-rights claims.

“JAENICE SMITH cared for her dying mother because a Black Assistant Chief told her to do so and directed the command to account for her. The Department then stripped that executive decision of legitimacy, called it an ‘arrangement,’ prosecuted the Black woman who relied upon it, manipulated her pension record, and demanded that she surrender her rights to obtain the retirement she had already earned.

“She has her pension. Now she is challenging the system that used it against her.”

Relief Sought

SMITH seeks damages and complete legal and equitable relief under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL, including invalidation of the challenged agreement, restoration of compensation and pensionable service taken from her, correction of her employment and retirement records, restoration of retirement credentials and benefits, and relief from the continuing consequences of the discriminatory and retaliatory conduct alleged.

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