FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
New York, NY – October 6, 2025 — Earlier today, Eric Sanders, Esq., of The Sanders Firm, P.C., uploaded Charges of Discrimination to the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) web portal on behalf of Detective Specialist Jaenice Smith, a twenty-year veteran of the New York City Police Department, against the City of New York, NYPD, and the New York City Police Pension Fund (PPF). The charges allege a coordinated campaign of retaliation, race and gender bias, disability discrimination, wrongful interference with a vested pension, and misuse of investigatory power.
I. A Compassionate Directive Turned Criminal Allegation
Detective Smith joined the NYPD on July 11, 2005, and rose through the ranks to Detective Specialist in Patrol Borough Brooklyn North (PBBN). Throughout her service, she earned a reputation for conscientious performance and community engagement.
In 2021, her mother, Barbara Ann Smith, was diagnosed with Stage IV cervical cancer and, over the next years, required intense caregiving, frequent treatments, and eventual hospice care. In early 2024, as the mother’s condition worsened, Detective Smith sought help from Assistant Chief Scott M. Henderson, then commanding officer of PBBN. Henderson personally told her to “stay home with your mother and care for her,” assuring her that the Department would treat that directive as authorized leave. She complied in good faith, called in “present for duty,” received pay, and continued under the Department’s radar.
From February through December 6, 2024 (the date of her mother’s passing), Smith devoted herself entirely to her caregiving responsibilities. After December, she met with Henderson to express her emotional distress, and he told her to take time until she was ready to return.
But beginning in early 2025, under newly installed Commissioner Jessica S. Tisch, the Department reversed course and recharacterized her prior authorized absence as “theft of time,” initiating disciplinary and investigatory procedures aimed at depriving her of retirement benefits just as her 20-year vesting date (July 11, 2025) approached.
II. The Investigation: Subpoena Abuse, Surveillance, and Humiliation
A. Misleading Administrative Subpoena Request
On April 1, 2025, Sergeant Guydee Surpris (IAB, Special Investigations Unit) submitted a request for a non-disclosure administrative subpoena to T-Mobile, demanding the subscriber, billing, and call detail records for Detective Smith’s phone number, covering a period from November 1, 2023 to April 1, 2025. The request asserted that these records would help determine “if the subject officer communicated with identified persons of interest who also withdrew money from the checking account.”
However, the Department’s internal investigation never alleged any financial misconduct, theft, or unauthorized withdrawals. That misrepresentation to subpoena a member’s private communications is precisely the kind of investigatory overreach that courts (including in the recent Chislett line of cases) have rejected as illegitimate under municipal liability doctrine (Monell) when supervisory officers engage knowingly in abusive subpoena practices.
Deputy Inspector Dawit Fikru certified the request, approved nondisclosure for 90 days to “avoid impeding the investigation,” and thereby attempted to cloak the aggressive collection of private data under the guise of internal oversight. The subpoena period was broad—16 months—and without narrowing to relevant calls or dates. The Department thus sought to transform a personnel investigation into a broad fishing expedition.
Under Chislett-style logic, the use of subpoena power by a municipal employer—or its investigative arm—with fabricated justification becomes a policy decision by supervisory officials that can ground Monell liability for the City. Here, the subpoena abuse is not a rogue error—it is part of a broader design to escalate internal discipline into statutory claims, to chill dissent, and to seize control of the narrative.
B. Surveillance, Videotaping, and “Ruse” Camera Canvass
The Department’s internal worksheet for IAB Case M-2025-529 included detailed instructions to:
canvass for cameras at Detective Smith’s home address “under a ruse that a crime was committed” to obtain footage showing whether she left home to attend duty,
check LPR (license plate reader) activity on her vehicle while assigned to work,
compare the distance from her residence to PBBN to assess whether in-person reporting was plausible,
obtain social-media records, request financial background checks, and
coordinate surveillance through other units (Group 55, etc.).
These directives reveal that the Department treated her as a suspect in a crime, rather than an employee protected by internal rules—and that they were willing to exploit subterfuge and clandestine surveillance to build evidence against her.
C. AG Hearing: Sexual-Implicative Suggestion, Intimidation, and Humiliation
On May 21, 2025, during Detective Smith’s formal Administrative Guide hearing, the Department’s interviewers made insinuations that she might have had a sexual relationship with Assistant Chief Henderson. While no official record memorializes that suggestion, Smith says the line of questioning crossed into innuendo. The implication—that a Black female detective could not have a legitimate professional relationship with a Black male executive without impropriety—evokes deeply biased tropes and undermines her credibility.
This inference constitutes discriminatory harassment on the basis of gender and race, and reflects institutional tolerance for rhetorical violence that serves no investigative purpose other than to demean and discredit a woman under duress.
III. Henderson’s Admissions: Administrative Error, Not Criminal Theft
In the June–July 2025 period, the Department itself initiated disciplinary charges against Assistant Chief Henderson in Disciplinary Case C-034318, alleging that he had (1) failed to file or direct a Reasonable Accommodation Request, (2) created or enabled an unauthorized work-from-home arrangement, (3) made false entries in Department records, and (4) made misleading statements in IAB interviews.
On July 23, 2025, Henderson signed a negotiated settlement, admitting misconduct in the administrative domain, forfeiting managerial and non-managerial leave days, but retaining his retirement benefits. He was not prosecuted criminally, nor was any felony allegation brought.
Henderson’s admission undercuts the entire theory of misconduct against the subordinate who followed his directive. It demonstrates that the Department itself considered the issue to be internal mismanagement—not grand larceny. The contrast between Henderson’s administrative settlement and Smith’s criminal-style charges is stark: it illustrates selective enforcement, disparate discipline, and institutional willingness to scapegoat a subordinate rather than correct a failure of command.
IV. Institutional Retaliation: OWBPA Coercion and Pension Stripping
As Smith’s 20-year vesting approached, Department counsel—Deputy Commissioner of the Department Advocate’s Office Tarek A. Rahman, or Agency Attorney David H. Green—escalated pressure. She was summoned repeatedly, threatened with criminal referral and public exposure if she did not sign a “negotiated agreement.” She was denied any written waiver, no time to review, no counsel, no revocation window. That is exactly the type of coercion that violates the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (29 U.S.C. § 626(f)).
Shortly thereafter, the Police Pension Fund issued three letters (May 28, June 6, June 26, 2025) retroactively changing her appointment and calculable service from July 11, 2005 to August 24, 2006—erasing more than one year of credit service. These letters instead claimed she was “AWOL” between February 7, 2024 and March 21, 2025. No disciplinary findings, no due process, no felony conviction existed. That attempted stripping of vested pension credit constitutes constructive forfeiture, in direct conflict with Chapter 514 of the Laws of 2011, which limits pension forfeiture to felony convictions.
Thus the Pension Fund and NYPD acted in concert to weaponize a public benefits mechanism into a tool of retaliation. That coordination amplifies Monell exposure, as the City cannot hide behind separate entities when the conduct is integrated into a single campaign of retaliation and discrimination.
V. A Pattern of Selective Enforcement Under the Guise of Reform
Smith’s experience is not isolated. Under Commissioner Tisch’s rhetoric of “restoring integrity,” the NYPD has quietly revisited prior discretionary decisions made under minority executives (like Henderson), recasting them as misconduct. Records show that senior Black officers who acted on command were later targeted, while white officers in analogous situations were never prosecuted.
The leak of unadjudicated internal charges about Smith to the press before trial, placed in tabloid headlines, signals that the Department is weaponizing public exposure to isolate and punish dissenting officers of color.
VI. Legal Basis: Title VII, ADA, ADEA, § 1983, Monell, and More
Smith’s EEOC complaint includes these claims:
Title VII § 704(a): Retaliation and interference for engaging in protected activity—disclosure of disability, family leave, and opposition to discrimination.
ADA § 12203(b): Coercion, threat, and interference with her right to accommodation and medical leave under the ADA.
ADEA § 623(d): Age-based retaliation and deception (via OWBPA coercion) against an employee over 40.
OWBPA (29 U.S.C. § 626(f)): The waiver process was defective—no written notice, no time to consult counsel, no revocation period.
§ 1983 (42 U.S.C.): The deprivation of her property interest (pension) and liberty interest (reputation) without due process, under color of state law.
NYSHRL § 296(7) and NYCHRL § 8-107(7): Retaliation and interference with compensation, terms, and benefits of employment.
Administrative Code §§ 13-214 & 13-218: Interference with vested retirement rights.
Chapter 514, Laws of 2011: Only a felony conviction can justify pension forfeiture—none exists here.
Under Monell, the subpoena abuse, coordinated pension action, and gender/rape-implicative insinuations qualify as municipal policy decisions by high-level officials. The Department’s invocation of Chislett (or its legal analogues) will show that oversight bodies must be held accountable when they misuse investigative power to chill protected speech, harass employees, and strip benefits.
VII. Human Consequences
The emotional toll has been acute. Smith, already diagnosed with PTSD, anxiety, and hypertension—exacerbated by years of caregiving stress—was subjected to humiliation, public vilification, and the fear of arrest. Her professional reputation has been attacked, her pension threatened, and the dignity of nearly two decades of public service called into question.
After retaining outside counsel, on October 3, 2025, Detective Specialist Smith formally notified Police Commissioner Jessica S. Tisch of her intent to retire, with her service-retirement application effective August 11, 2025, and a retirement date of September 11, 2025. Despite that notification, the Department refused to dismiss the pending disciplinary charges—even after Assistant Chief Scott Henderson, her superior officer, admitted under oath that he personally authorized her leave to care for her terminally ill mother and failed to file the necessary paperwork. Instead, the Department continued to prosecute the case, scheduling a disciplinary trial for November 5–7, 2025. The continued pursuit of these charges—after Henderson’s admissions and Smith’s lawful retirement filing—served no legitimate purpose other than retaliation and interference with her vested employment and pension rights.
VIII. Remedies Sought
Through her EEOC filing, Smith demands:
Immediate recognition of her service-retirement, using July 11, 2005 as her appointment date, and separation as of September 11, 2025.
Rescission of the three unauthorized Pension Fund letters and full restoration of service credit.
Compensatory and punitive damages for lost wages, pension contributions, emotional distress, reputational harm, and retaliation.
Expungement of all “AWOL” designations, investigatory notes, and public leaks from her personnel file.
A permanent injunction prohibiting future retaliatory or coercive actions by NYPD or PPF toward her or similarly situated employees.
Attorneys’ fees, expert costs, and all legal and equitable relief necessary to make her whole.
IX. Why This Matters: Beyond One Veteran Officer
Smith’s case strikes at the core of how public employers misuse investigative privilege and pension authority to silence dissent, suppress disability accommodations, and enforce racial and gender hierarchies under the cover of reform. The invocation of Chislett (or similar precedent) underscores that when municipal authorities conspire to abuse subpoena power, they expose themselves to § 1983 liability.
This is not a single-person fight—it’s a test case for every public servant who dares to care for a relative, assert protected rights, or challenge discriminatory practices within a powerful municipal machine.
X. Statement from Eric Sanders, Esq.
“Detective Smith was asked to be the face of compassion in the Department—caring for her dying mother on command. But now, the same Department seeks to brand her a thief. That’s not discipline—that’s punishment. They misused subpoena power, threatened her with arrest, insinuated a sexual relationship, and coordinated to strip her pension. They overreached at every level. The EEOC has a roadmap to expose institutional abuse, and we will see this through to its legal end.”
About Smith and The Sanders Firm, P.C.
Detective Smith is a dedicated public servant whose experience exemplifies the tension between care responsibilities and policing duty. The Sanders Firm, P.C., led by civil-rights attorney Eric Sanders, specializes in employment discrimination, constitutional law, and police accountability. They have represented public-sector clients in high-stakes litigation across New York City.
Media Contact:
The Sanders Firm, P.C.
30 Wall Street, 8th Floor | New York, NY 10005
Phone: (212) 652-2782
Website: www.thesandersfirmpc.com
###
Read the EEOC Charge of Discrimination
Read Exhibit 1 First PPF Letter
Read Exhibit 2 Second PPF Letter
Read Exhibit 3 Third PPF Letter
Read Exhibit 4 Subpoena
Read Exhibit 5 Charges and Specifications
Read Exhibit 7 Henderson’s Settlement Agreement
Read Exhibit 8 Notice of Retirement