The New York City Police Department (NYPD) remains the largest and arguably most scrutinized municipal police force in the United States. Yet, despite its scale and prominence, it has consistently failed to implement meaningful structural protections against sexual harassment and discrimination within its ranks. These failings, documented in the 2020 audit by the New York City Equal Employment Practices Commission (EEPC), remain painfully relevant today in the aftermath of the sex-for-overtime misconduct scandal that forced the resignation of former Chief of Department Jeffrey Maddrey in December 2024. As the department attempts to regain public trust through a hasty restructuring of its internal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) infrastructure under Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch, the question remains whether the changes address core systemic issues or merely shift the optics of oversight. In this blog, we examine the EEPC’s audit findings, contrast them with the department’s current restructuring efforts, analyze the applicable legal frameworks and procedural remedies available to survivors, and propose a meaningful path forward rooted in legal accountability and structural reform.
The 2020 EEPC Audit: Warnings Unheeded
The 2020 EEPC audit was commissioned to assess the NYPD’s compliance with citywide sexual harassment prevention and response standards. Its findings were illuminating, not for what they confirmed on paper but for what they revealed in practice. Though the department technically maintained a written sexual harassment policy, disseminated it to employees, and provided required training, it failed to operationalize its obligations meaningfully. The department’s Equal Employment Opportunity Division lacked protocols to inform complainants of investigative outcomes. Investigations routinely exceeded the 90-day resolution period without documented extensions or justification. The audit also identified that key contact information for enforcement agencies, such as the NYC Commission on Human Rights, was outdated or incorrectly listed in department materials, a seemingly administrative failure with far-reaching consequences for access to justice.
Worse still, the NYPD lacked a formalized mechanism for disciplining supervisory officers who either failed to take appropriate action on harassment complaints or engaged in misconduct themselves. The audit confirmed what many officers and civilian employees had experienced firsthand: a workplace culture that paid lip service to policy compliance while reinforcing internal power hierarchies that enabled abuse, silenced survivors, and prioritized reputation management over meaningful resolution. Training modules, while mandatory, were insufficiently monitored for efficacy or comprehension, and no systems were in place to audit whether employees and supervisors internalized or implemented the principles taught.
The Maddrey–Epps Scandal: A Crisis of Credibility
Fast forward to March 2025, following the public unraveling of the Maddrey-Epps scandal. Former Chief of Department Jeffrey Maddrey, the NYPD’s highest-ranking uniformed officer, resigned amid allegations that he coerced now-retired Lt. Quathisha Epps into sex in exchange for overtime assignments. The case, which involved allegations of sexual coercion, retaliation, and widespread sharing of Epps’s nude videos throughout department chatrooms, shook public confidence in the NYPD’s internal accountability mechanisms.
The department responded with a quiet internal restructuring, not with transparency or external oversight. Commissioner Jessica Tisch issued an order removing the EEO investigative unit from the Office of Equity and Inclusion (OEI) and placing it under her direct supervision. The NYPD described the prior structure as “obsolete,” which had allowed EEO investigations to be overseen by Deputy Commissioner Wendy Garcia, who abruptly transferred to the Department of Correction without public explanation despite continuing to be listed in her former NYPD role online.
Structural Changes or Superficial Reassignments?
NYPD officials denied that the restructuring was a response to the Maddrey scandal, instead attributing the change to guidance from the United States Office of Personnel Management regarding the separation of human resources, EEO, and diversity functions. But the timing, context, and underlying facts tell a different story.
The Maddrey case illustrates many systemic weaknesses outlined in the EEPC’s 2020 audit: failure to prevent retaliation, failure to protect the complainant’s privacy, failure to investigate promptly and transparently, and a pattern of internal protectionism for senior leadership. While procedurally significant, the department’s internal reorganization does little to address these underlying cultural and operational failures. Transferring the chain of command from one NYPD executive to another does not constitute structural reform—it reinforces the insularity that allowed this misconduct to flourish in the first place.
Applicable Legal Frameworks: Title VII, NYSHRL, NYCHRL
Evaluating the intersecting legal frameworks that govern sexual harassment in the workplace is essential to understanding the full scope of legal recourse available to NYPD employees and similarly situated public workers.
At the federal level, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on sex, including the creation of a hostile work environment and retaliation for opposing unlawful practices. Title VII applies to private and public employers with 15 or more employees, including law enforcement agencies. However, filing a claim under Title VII requires administrative exhaustion. Complainants must file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 300 days of the most recent act of harassment or retaliation. They must obtain a Right to Sue letter before proceeding to federal court.
New York State offers broader protections under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), codified at Executive Law § 296. Amendments enacted in 2019 and 2022 expanded the scope of liability, clarified that harassment need not be severe, pervasive, or unlawful, and extended the statute of limitations for administrative complaints to three years. The law also mandates that all employers—public and private, regardless of size—maintain sexual harassment prevention policies, conduct annual training, and provide information about legal remedies. Complaints under the NYSHRL may be filed with the New York State Division of Human Rights (NYSDHR) or in civil court within three years of the most recent unlawful act.
The New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) provides the most plaintiff-friendly framework at the municipal level. The NYCHRL imposes strict liability on employers for supervisory harassment and retaliation, applies a more generous standard for what constitutes harassment, and permits punitive damages and attorney’s fees without statutory caps. Complaints under the NYCHRL may be filed with the New York City Commission on Human Rights (NYCCHR) or in civil court within three years of the most recent unlawful act.
Constitutional Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
In addition to these civil rights statutes, public employees who suffer sexual harassment or retaliation at the hands of a government official may pursue constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 provides a cause of action against any person acting under the color of state law, depriving another of their constitutional rights, including equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Courts have consistently held that sexual harassment and retaliation by public officials can constitute a violation of equal protection and give rise to § 1983 liability. Importantly, § 1983 claims are not subject to administrative exhaustion requirements but must be filed within the applicable three-year statute of limitations in New York. Unlike Title VII, § 1983 allows direct lawsuits against individual officers and municipal entities where the harassment results from official policy, practice, or deliberate indifference.
Differences in Legal Protections for Public vs. Private Employees
While the above statutes apply to public and private employees, important distinctions remain in enforcing these protections. Public employees, including NYPD personnel, are often subject to collective bargaining agreements that may require internal grievance processes to be exhausted before external remedies can be pursued. Civil service laws may further limit the types of relief available, and some claims may be subject to agency-specific procedures that differ from those in the private sector.
In contrast, private-sector employees typically do not face these procedural hurdles. Without navigating internal processes, they may file directly with the EEOC, NYSDHR, or NYCCHR. However, they may also lack access to § 1983 claims specific to violations committed under the color of state law.
Statutes of Limitations and Procedural Requirements
Understanding procedural timelines is critical for preserving legal rights. For Title VII claims, the statute of limitations is 300 days from the last incident of discrimination or retaliation. The limitations period is three years for claims filed with the NYSDHR or NYCCHR under NYSHRL or NYCHRL. A civil lawsuit under the NYCHRL or NYSHRL must also be filed within three years. For constitutional claims under § 1983, plaintiffs have three years to file in federal or state court. Each statute has unique administrative prerequisites. For instance, Title VII requires a Right to Sue letter from the EEOC, while § 1983 does not.
Damages and Legal Remedies
Under Title VII, compensatory and punitive damages are capped based on the employer’s size, ranging from $50,000 to $300,000. These include potential back pay, front pay, reinstatement, and attorneys’ fees. NYSHRL and NYCHRL do not impose such caps and allow for a broader range of compensatory and punitive damages. The NYCHRL provides for robust remedies, including injunctive relief and emotional distress damages. Section 1983 claims permit compensatory and punitive damages against individual defendants in their personal capacities and declaratory and injunctive relief.
Case Studies: Patterns of Retaliation and Institutional Betrayal
The Maddrey–Epps case is not an anomaly but a case study in a recurring pattern. In 2021, the NYPD faced widespread public condemnation after Deputy Inspector James Kobel—then-commanding officer of the department’s Equal Employment Opportunity Division—was revealed to have authored hundreds of racist, sexist, and bigoted messages in pseudonymous NYPD-affiliated chatrooms under the alias “Clouseau.” His posts targeted women, Black officers, and protesters with inflammatory and dehumanizing rhetoric—all while he held a position responsible for enforcing the department’s anti-discrimination policies. Following an internal investigation, the NYPD substantiated charges of prejudicial and unbecoming conduct and recommended his termination. However, Kobel retired before disciplinary proceedings could be completed, evading formal accountability. The incident laid bare a stark contradiction: those entrusted with protecting employee rights within the department were, in some cases, actively undermining them—reinforcing a culture of impunity and institutional betrayal.
Case Study 1: Shemalisca Vasquez v. City of New York, et al.
Shemalisca Vasquez, a Puerto Rican female NYPD officer, filed a lawsuit alleging sustained sexual harassment, a hostile work environment, and retaliation while assigned to the Transit Bronx Task Force. From February to November 2010, Lieutenant Ruben Caban allegedly sent her sexually explicit messages, exposed himself while on duty, and demanded sexual favors in exchange for favorable work assignments and overtime opportunities. After Vasquez rejected his advances, she alleged he retaliated by cutting her overtime, assigning her undesirable posts, and denying her scheduled leave.
Despite reporting the conduct to Internal Affairs and the department’s Equal Employment Opportunity Office, Vasquez claimed both units mishandled her complaint. The lawsuit further alleged that Sgt. Rosita Gonzalez, aware of Caban’s conduct, failed to intervene, and Lt. Edward Gonzalez mishandled the internal investigation while making inappropriate remarks.
The action was filed in the Bronx County Supreme Court (Index No.: 306825/12) in August 2012. On December 12, 2018, the case was settled for $300,000, which the City of New York paid.
Case Study 2: Ann Cardenas v. City of New York, et al.
Officer Ann Cardenas brought a sexual harassment lawsuit against the City of New York, her former supervisor Sgt. David John, and fellow officer Angel Colon, citing pervasive misconduct at the 83rd Precinct in Bushwick, Brooklyn. Sgt. John allegedly referred to Cardenas as his “work p—y,” repeatedly made explicit sexual comments, kissed her without consent, and physically harassed her. He also allegedly admitted to masturbating to her Facebook photograph.
Following Sgt. John’s retirement in 2014, Officer Colon allegedly continued the harassment by making threatening sexual remarks and unwanted physical contact, including telling Cardenas he would “rape her in a good way.”
The federal court likened the workplace to a “sordid frat house.” Judge Ann Donnelly ruled that John and Colon could be held personally liable. In April 2018, the case was settled for $535,000: the City paid $500,000, while John and Colon paid $20,000 and $15,000, respectively. The City declined to defend the officers individually.
Case Study 3: Angelique Olaechea v. City of New York, et al.
Lieutenant Angelique Olaechea alleged retaliation by NYPD leadership after she assisted Officer Javier Velazquez with filing an EEO complaint against precinct supervisors at the 9th Precinct in Manhattan. After testifying on his behalf at a departmental trial, Olaechea claimed her superiors retaliated by spreading false rumors about a romantic relationship between them and orchestrating her transfer to the 79th Precinct in Brooklyn under the pretext of a “pattern of unacceptable behavior.”
Subsequently, she was issued five retroactive infractions, four of which were upheld at a departmental trial. In 2018, a departmental judge recommended her termination, prompting her resignation.
Olaechea filed a federal retaliation lawsuit. In August 2021, a Manhattan jury awarded her $872,000, finding that the NYPD leadership had unlawfully retaliated against her for protected activity.
Case Study 4: Sharon Balli v. City of New York, et al.
Captain Sharon Balli, the NYPD’s first female Guyanese captain, alleged gender discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation while serving in Manhattan South Narcotics. Balli reported sexually charged comments by senior officers, including one supervisor stating she “needed more sex to stay calm” and another bragging about paying for sex while traveling abroad. When she brought these concerns to Deputy Inspector Andrew Arias, she was allegedly told to “stand down and stay in your lane.”
After filing a formal complaint, Balli claimed she was subjected to retaliatory surveillance, a workplace complaint for installing a security camera, and an Internal Affairs Bureau investigation that nearly led to her arrest. The Manhattan DA’s Public Corruption Unit ultimately dropped the investigation.
Crucially, Balli alleged that Deputy Inspector James Kobel—then the NYPD’s second-in-command at the Equal Employment Opportunity Office—tipped off the officers she had named. Kobel was later exposed for running an anonymous account posting racist and obscene content and was fired in 2021.
Captain Balli settled her claims with the City of New York for $800,000 in January 2022.
These examples affirm what legal scholars have identified as “institutional betrayal,” in which organizations fail to protect individuals who depend on them for safety and accountability. In public agencies like the NYPD, institutional betrayal is incredibly corrosive, not only because of the inherent power differential but also because public institutions are bound by constitutional obligations to uphold equality, safety, and due process.
A Legal and Legislative Call to Action
True reform requires more than internal shuffling. It requires dismantling the cultural and procedural obstacles that have enabled systemic harm. Several measures should be implemented immediately:
Independent Investigations: All sexual misconduct allegations by NYPD supervisors or executives should be automatically referred to an independent agency with full investigatory and disciplinary authority. Department investigatory mechanisms should not be the final arbiters of executive misconduct.
Civilian Oversight: The Civilian Complaint Review Board or an expanded body must be authorized to handle EEO-related misconduct and retaliation claims. Survivors must be able to report outside the chain of command.
Whistleblower Protections: Retaliation for reporting misconduct, including reassignment, suspension, or reputational smearing, must be criminalized and prosecuted under state law.
Transparency Mandates: All final investigative findings and disciplinary outcomes should be made public in redacted form. Annual reports should disclose the number and type of EEO complaints filed, resolved, and upheld.
Amend Civil Service Law: Barriers to external redress—such as mandatory arbitration clauses or internal grievance exhaustion requirements—should be revised or eliminated for public employees facing discrimination or harassment.
Expanded § 1983 Education: Legal education initiatives should train civil rights lawyers and public employees to preserve § 1983 claims and use constitutional law to supplement statutory remedies.
Empowering Survivors: What to Do Next
If you are a public employee—especially in law enforcement—and you have experienced sexual harassment, retaliation, or institutional neglect, you should immediately consult legal counsel. The following steps can protect your rights:
Document every incident, including time, place, names, and witnesses.
Retain copies of text messages, emails, performance reviews, and complaint submissions.
File a formal complaint with your agency’s EEO office and note the timeline.
Consult an employment attorney to assess whether to file with the EEOC, NYSDHR, or NYCCHR.
Consider whether your case involves constitutional violations warranting a § 1983 action.
Monitor statutory deadlines carefully and do not wait for internal processes to resolve before pursuing external remedies.
You are not obligated to suffer in silence and are not alone. The law provides multiple avenues for justice, but timely, informed action is key.
Conclusion: Structural Reform or Continued Complicity
The NYPD’s handling of sexual harassment has long reflected the hallmarks of institutional dysfunction: delayed investigations, retaliatory conduct, administrative opacity, and a culture of silence surrounding high-ranking perpetrators. The 2020 EEPC audit laid bare the department’s failure to comply with basic prevention and response standards. The Maddrey–Epps scandal affirmed how little had changed. And the 2025 restructuring under Commissioner Tisch, while publicly framed as a procedural modernization, appears to be another iteration of internal control disguised as reform.
The NYPD does not need another chain of command adjustment; it requires fundamentally reimagining who holds power and how accountability is enforced. Until survivors are heard, protected, and empowered—and until leadership is subject to external scrutiny—sexual harassment will continue to operate as an invisible tax on women, LGBTQ+ officers, and civilian employees in public service.
Legal advocates, policymakers, and members of the public must not mistake optics for accountability. Policy is not progress. Progress is when power is checked, survivors are safe, and institutions finally become worthy of the public trust they claim to serve.
If you’ve experienced harassment or were pressured into an unwanted relationship with a superior, or if your workplace has punished you for resisting such advances, don’t delay. The Sanders Firm, P.C. is committed to helping survivors of workplace harassment and retaliation. We are here to listen, advocate, and act.
Stay informed: Follow us on LinkedIn, X, and YouTube for legal updates on sexual harassment, retaliation, and workplace rights.
Get connected: Visit The Sanders Firm, P.C. to learn more or sign up for our newsletter.
Take action: Together, we can challenge abuse, demand accountability, and build a safer and more equitable workplace for all.
Review EEPC Report