FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Danielle E. Raia alleges NYPD leaders sent her into discriminatory command environments, denied her the tools to succeed, punished her for supporting Black and Hispanic officers, retaliated after she raised drone-related integrity concerns, replaced her with a lower-ranked male successor, and used unproven charges to pressure her separation.

New York, New York — July 3, 2026 — Eric Sanders, Esq., of The Sanders Firm, P.C. has filed a Verified Complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, on behalf of retired NYPD Inspector Danielle E. Raia, a twenty-six-year Department veteran and the first female Commanding Officer of the NYPD’s Technical Assistance and Response Unit, known as TARU.

The lawsuit names THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Police Commissioner JESSICA S. TISCH, KAZ DAUGHTRY, MICHAEL J. LIPETRI, JEFFREY B. MADDREY, JOHN M. CHELL, and JOSEPH E. KENNY as defendants. It alleges gender discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, selective enforcement, aiding and abetting, and continuing post-employment retaliation under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law.

“This case is about what happens when a woman rises to senior command, challenges a discriminatory culture, supports Black and Hispanic officers, questions powerful interests around NYPD drone operations, and then becomes the target,” said Eric Sanders, Esq., of The Sanders Firm, P.C. “Inspector Raia was not simply denied support. She alleges she was set up to fail.”

According to the Verified Complaint, Raia served in patrol, firearms investigations, violent-crime enforcement, domestic-violence operations, technical response, and senior executive assignments. She alleges that when treated fairly and supported according to her rank, experience, and qualifications, she performed effectively.

The lawsuit alleges that changed when Raia entered male-dominated senior command environments where she was denied equal authority, denied operational discretion, denied executive support, and subjected to gender-based hostility.

The most dramatic comparator comes from TARU.

TARU is one of the NYPD’s most powerful and sensitive citywide technical units. It handles surveillance support, video recovery, cameras, drone-related operations, protests, parades, shootings, police-involved shootings, emergency-response support, catastrophic incidents, and other major technical operations throughout New York City.

According to the Verified Complaint, Raia repeatedly requested an Executive Officer and necessary personnel support while serving as TARU’s first female Commanding Officer. Those requests were denied, ignored, or left unresolved.

Then, after Raia was removed, the NYPD allegedly installed Deputy Inspector Kevin R. Cain, a lower-ranked male successor connected to the LIPETRI / CHELL command network, and immediately gave him the Executive Officer and personnel support Raia had been denied.

“That is the central comparator,” Sanders said. “The first female Commanding Officer of TARU asked for the tools to run the command. The Department denied her. Then they removed her, installed a lower-ranked man, and gave him the tools on day one. That is not subtle. That is the case.”

The Verified Complaint alleges that defendant JEFFREY B. MADDREY had actual notice of Raia’s complaints about discriminatory and hostile command conditions. Raia alleges that MADDREY placed her into TARU to change what he allegedly acknowledged was a discriminatory culture, including racist conditions inside the Detective Bureau, Intelligence, and TARU, but then failed to provide the authority, protection, Executive Officer, and personnel support needed for her to succeed.

“They allegedly told her the culture was discriminatory and expected her to fix it,” Sanders said. “Then they left her exposed to the same culture they claimed she was being sent in to change.”

The lawsuit also alleges racial animus. Raia alleges that she was criticized and resented because she supported Black and Hispanic officers and brought Black and Hispanic officers into TARU. According to the Verified Complaint, a TARU supervisor told Raia she had “a history of taking care of minorities,” and another senior figure allegedly stated that Raia had a reputation for taking care of minorities and that “they” did not like it.

“This is not only a gender case,” Sanders said. “The complaint alleges that Raia became a problem because she supported Black and Hispanic officers in a command culture that did not want that support. That racial animus matters.”

The lawsuit further alleges that gender-based assignment tracking played a role in Raia’s career. According to the Verified Complaint, women and other non-favored executives were often routed into assignments perceived as less operationally prestigious, while male executives were given more influential command roles, operational discretion, and institutional support. Raia alleges that even when she received important assignments, the Department denied her the authority and support male executives received.

The lawsuit also alleges gender-based hostility inside senior command. In Gun Violence, Raia alleges male command actors restricted her ability to initiate cases, use investigative tools, and lead according to her rank and experience. She alleges she was bypassed, second-guessed, and subordinated to male command actors despite her firearms-investigation background.

According to the Verified Complaint, Raia also witnessed or experienced gendered and sexualized treatment, including mockery of a senior female executive and command-level comments reflecting a culture in which women were treated as outsiders in senior operational spaces.

The Verified Complaint also describes a senior-command meeting where then-Mayor Eric L. Adams was discussed in connection with alleged comments about City officials “colluding” against him. Raia alleges that after that discussion, defendant JOHN M. CHELL told her in front of senior officials, “There’s no secrets here,” a statement Raia understood as a warning that complaints inside the room were not confidential.

“That allegation matters because it goes to fear, chilling, and retaliation,” Sanders said. “If a female executive is being told there are ‘no secrets here’ while she is trying to complain about mistreatment, the message is obvious: be careful what you say, because command is listening.”

The lawsuit also raises drone-related integrity concerns. According to the Verified Complaint, Raia questioned or resisted aspects of Skydio-related drone operations and vendor influence around TARU. The complaint alleges that senior command’s treatment of Raia worsened after she raised those concerns.

“This case includes questions about drones, vendor influence, and internal power around NYPD technology,” Sanders said. “Those are public-interest issues. TARU is not a minor unit. It sits at the intersection of surveillance, drones, video, protests, shootings, and citywide response.”

The lawsuit alleges that after anonymous internal letters were submitted against Raia, IAB conducted surveillance and the Department escalated disciplinary action. Raia alleges that the IAB process ignored context, including TARU’s citywide operational demands, her limited-duty and medical circumstances, and Department-controlled records that could have verified her work activity.

The Verified Complaint alleges that the later Charges and Specifications became “punishment by accusation.”

Raia did not plead guilty. She did not receive a Department trial. She was never found guilty.

Nevertheless, the lawsuit alleges that defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK and Police Commissioner JESSICA S. TISCH permitted unresolved and unproven allegations to be treated as established misconduct, damaging Raia’s retirement posture, firearm-related interests, Good-Guy Letter interests, retired identification interests, handgun-license status, H.R. 218 certification path, professional standing, and post-retirement opportunities.

“A charge is not proof,” Sanders said. “A specification is not a conviction. Due process means the Department cannot use unproven allegations as a career-ending weapon and then pretend nothing happened.”

The Verified Complaint alleges the following conduct by each defendant:

THE CITY OF NEW YORK is alleged to have maintained, permitted, and enforced the NYPD command and disciplinary practices that denied Raia equal authority, equal support, equal discipline, and equal post-retirement treatment.

JESSICA S. TISCH, as Police Commissioner, is alleged to have permitted unresolved and unproven Charges and Specifications to be used against Raia without a guilty plea, Department trial, finding of guilt, final disciplinary adjudication, or judicial finding establishing misconduct, and to have failed to protect Raia’s due-process, retirement-related, firearm-related, and professional interests.

KAZ DAUGHTRY is alleged to have exercised operational and supervisory authority over Raia and TARU, imposed unrealistic operational expectations, and failed to provide or secure the Executive Officer and personnel support Raia repeatedly requested.

MICHAEL J. LIPETRI is alleged to be central to the comparator sequence involving Raia’s replacement by Deputy Inspector Cain, a lower-ranked male successor connected to the LIPETRI / CHELL command network who allegedly received the support Raia had been denied.

JEFFREY B. MADDREY is alleged to have had actual notice of Raia’s protected complaints, placed Raia into TARU to change a discriminatory culture, and failed to provide the authority, protection, personnel, and executive support necessary to prevent further discrimination and retaliation.

JOHN M. CHELL is alleged to have exercised operational authority over TARU, disregarded Raia’s operational and medical circumstances, displayed hostility toward Raia concerning Skydio-related drone issues, treated Raia differently from her male successor, and participated in the command conditions leading to her removal.

JOSEPH E. KENNY is alleged to have contributed to the Detective Bureau hostile-work-environment allegations by repeatedly denigrating Firearms Investigation Officer experience despite knowing Raia’s firearms-investigation background, thereby undermining her authority, expertise, and command standing in Gun Violence.

“This lawsuit is about gender, race, retaliation, drones, IAB, due process, and power inside the NYPD,” Sanders said. “It asks whether senior command can send a female Inspector into a hostile culture, deny her the tools to survive it, punish her for supporting Black and Hispanic officers, retaliate when she questions drone-related conduct, and then use unproven allegations to push her out.”

The Verified Complaint seeks compensatory damages, equitable relief, declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees, costs, and specific relief related to Raia’s Good-Guy Letter, unrestricted retired NYPD police identification card, retired police officer handgun-license status, ability to obtain H.R. 218 certification, forfeited time and leave balances, and related retirement benefits.

The case is pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County.

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