Note: The following blog post is based on the verified amended complaint filed in Gabrielle Walls v. City of New York et al., Index No. 156492/2024. All defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven liable in a court of law. These are allegations that must be proven at trial.

Silence has long been currency in the corridors of power, where badges are polished and promotions are promised. But NYPD Captain Gabrielle Walls, a decorated Black woman with over two decades of service, has chosen a different path—one marked by resistance, exposure, and a battle against an institution she once proudly served. Her verified amended complaint, recently filed in the Supreme Court of New York County, reads not as an isolated tale of harassment but as a sweeping indictment of systemic misconduct and the City’s refusal to confront it.

A Career Built on Merit—and Undermined by Misconduct

Captain Walls joined the NYPD in 2000 and swiftly rose through the ranks. From her early days in the 79th Precinct to her tenure as a respected Integrity Control Officer and eventually her promotion to Captain in 2022, Walls consistently received accolades for her professionalism and leadership. But behind the commendations lurked a reality darker than any precinct hallway—years of unwanted advances, institutional betrayal, and systemic retaliation.

Allegations Against Chief Jeffrey Maddrey

Walls alleges that beginning in 2015, Jeffrey Maddrey began to subject her to ongoing sexual harassment. According to the complaint:

• Maddrey allegedly made repeated unwelcome sexual advances, including whispering inappropriate and sexually charged remarks such as “I want you so badly” and “You smell so good.”
• He allegedly tried to kiss Walls on multiple occasions at department holiday parties.
• Walls claims Maddrey instructed her to call him “Jeff” and conveyed that her future promotion depended on their connection, stating he would “mold” her into a Captain.
• He allegedly appeared at her precinct uninvited, often waiting until other supervisors had left, prompting Walls to hide in her office with the lights off and the door locked to avoid him.
• After she declined his advances, she alleges Maddrey retaliated against her by withdrawing professional support and obstructing career advancement.

Despite these allegations, Maddrey was promoted through the ranks, including appointments as Chief of Community Affairs, Chief of Housing, and ultimately Chief of the Department.

Allegations Against Assistant Chief Scott Henderson

Following Maddrey’s promotion, Walls alleges that Assistant Chief Scott Henderson, a protégé of Maddrey, began to target her with similar conduct. The complaint details:

• Henderson allegedly made inappropriate physical contact, including a 2022 incident in which he directed Walls to respond to a crime scene without necessity.
• Afterward, he allegedly cornered her, tried to kiss her, ran his hand down her arm, and kissed her cheek despite her pulling away.
• When she did not reciprocate, Henderson allegedly retaliated against her with dismissive comments in front of peers, including remarks suggesting other women were more compliant.
• He allegedly withheld support for Walls’ expected promotion to Deputy Inspector and undermined her reputation within the department.

Walls claims Henderson’s conduct was a continuation of Maddrey’s pattern and evidence of a culture of coordinated harassment within the department’s leadership ranks.

Allegations Against Commissioner Edward Caban

The complaint also names Commissioner Edward Caban, not for direct acts of harassment against Walls, but for alleged complicity and prior misconduct. Walls asserts:

• Caban was aware of the allegations against Maddrey and Henderson but failed to take corrective action.
• He was allegedly promoted despite his history of sexual misconduct and fraternizing with subordinates, including reports of sexual activity in NYPD offices.
• As Commissioner, he perpetuated a hostile environment by refusing to discipline offending officers and promoting individuals with known misconduct histories.

Walls contends that Caban’s leadership contributed to the NYPD’s systemic failure to protect women officers and enforce accountability.

Additional Allegations Against Senior Leadership and the City

The complaint further identifies a broader pattern of misconduct and protectionism within NYPD leadership:

• Numerous officers, including Captain Pagan, Lieutenant Lucas, and Detective Cruz, were allegedly involved in misconduct ranging from harassment to sexual assault.
• In many cases, these officers were not disciplined but were reassigned, allowed to retire, or even promoted.
• The City of New York allegedly knew of these patterns and failed to act, creating a system where survivors were retaliated against while abusers were rewarded.

Understanding Consent in the Context of Power, Coercion, and Grooming

Consent is only valid when given freely, without manipulation, intimidation, or an imbalance of power. True consent requires that both parties have equal ability to agree or refuse without fear of retaliation, professional consequences, or coercion. However, in cases of abuse of power, consent is often eroded through a gradual and strategic process of control known as grooming.

Dr. Sinnamon’s Seven-Stage Model of Adult Sexual Grooming provides a framework to understand how individuals in positions of power systematically manipulate and coerce victims into submission:

1. Targeting the Victim – Identifying someone vulnerable or dependent, often a subordinate, whose ambition or isolation can be exploited.
2. Gaining Trust and Access – Positioning oneself as a mentor or ally, establishing dependency through apparent guidance and support.
3. Desensitization to Sexual Content – Introducing inappropriate jokes, touching, or comments to normalize misconduct.
4. Isolation and Control – Reducing the victim’s external support and increasing emotional, professional dependency.
5. Creating Entrapment – Imposing fear of professional harm, retaliation, or shame for non-compliance.
6. Initiating Coerced Encounters – Exploiting fear or loyalty to push the victim into unwanted interactions.
7. Maintaining Secrecy – Using gaslighting, threats, or professional retaliation to silence the victim and maintain control.

In institutions like the NYPD, where hierarchy and discipline are rigidly enforced, power-imbalanced relationships are inherently coercive. Participation under pressure, fear, or career dependence is not consent. These dynamics challenge the false narrative of consensual workplace relationships and underscore the importance of accountability.

Legal Claims and the Road Ahead

Walls’s legal action is grounded in New York State Executive Law § 296 and the New York City Human Rights Law § 8-107. These statutes prohibit sex-based discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in employment and hold employers strictly liable when managers engage in such conduct.

The complaint invokes the Continuing Violation Doctrine, arguing that the harassment has lasted nearly a decade and is a continuous unlawful practice. This legal framing ensures that no misconduct escapes scrutiny simply because of time.

Walls is seeking compensatory, emotional distress, and punitive damages. But this case, by design, is about more than compensation. It is about exposing what she alleges is an “entrenched culture of sexual harassment” in the NYPD. This culture cannot be fixed by policy memos or internal investigations alone.

The Legal Road Ahead: What Happens Next

Walls’ case is still in the early phases of litigation. Here is the general legal roadmap for what could come:

1. Motion to Dismiss: The City and individual defendants may file a motion to dismiss, arguing that even if all allegations are true, they do not constitute a legal violation. If the court grants the motion, all or part of the case could be dismissed. If denied, the case moves forward.
2. Discovery: If the case survives dismissal, both sides will exchange documents, take depositions, and seek evidence. This phase may uncover internal NYPD records, emails, performance evaluations, and other documentation. Walls and high-ranking NYPD officials may be deposed under oath.
3. Summary Judgment: After discovery, the defense may move for summary judgment, arguing that the facts do not support a legal claim. If granted, the case may be resolved without trial. If denied, the matter proceeds to trial.
4. Trial: A jury trial would allow Walls to present her case and the defendants to respond. Evidence, witnesses, and institutional practices would be scrutinized.
5. Settlement: At any point in the litigation process, the parties may agree to resolve some or all of the claims through a settlement agreement. These agreements can include monetary and non-monetary terms and typically contain language stating that the settlement does not constitute an admission of liability by the defendants.Under prevailing law, including amendments to the New York State Human Rights Law, confidentiality provisions in sexual harassment or discrimination settlements are generally prohibited unless confidentiality is the express preference of the complainant. Even in such cases, the complainant must be given 21 days to consider the confidentiality term and 7 days to revoke acceptance once agreed to, ensuring it is knowing and voluntary.

   Therefore, while confidential settlements are legally permissible, they are tightly regulated in cases involving allegations of sexual harassment, to prevent coerced silence and promote transparency. Plaintiffs and defendants must navigate these restrictions carefully to comply with statutory requirements.

Call to Action: You Are Not Alone

Captain Gabrielle Walls has come forward at great personal risk to shine a light on what she believes is a longstanding pattern of abuse and cover-up inside the NYPD. Her lawsuit challenges not only individual misconduct but the structural failures that allowed it to persist.

If you are a current or former NYPD employee, particularly a woman, and have experienced:

• Unwanted advances or sexual comments from superiors;
• Pressure to enter a so-called “consensual” relationship with someone in power;
• Retaliation for rejecting or reporting misconduct;
• Intimidation, transfer, isolation, or career derailment after asserting your rights;

You are not alone. These experiences may constitute unlawful harassment or retaliation under New York law. Power-imbalanced relationships, even those labeled consensual, may be the result of coercion, grooming, or psychological manipulation.

Seeking Legal Assistance

Navigating the complexities of employment discrimination and wrongful termination claims can be overwhelming, particularly in light of recent legal developments such as the Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis. Consulting with an experienced employment attorney can help you understand your rights, gather evidence, and build a viable case.

A. How an Employment Lawyer Can Help

An experienced employment lawyer can assist you in several key ways:

• Evaluating your case: An attorney will assess whether you have sufficient evidence to pursue claims involving sexual harassment, discrimination, or wrongful termination.
• Filing administrative complaints: Your lawyer can prepare and file complaints with the EEOC, New York State Division of Human Rights, or New York City Commission on Human Rights, ensuring deadlines and legal standards are met.
• Negotiating settlements: Many claims are resolved through negotiated settlements. A skilled attorney can advocate on your behalf to secure the most favorable terms possible.
• Representing you in court: If your case proceeds to trial, your attorney will present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and argue your claims before a judge or jury.

B. Choosing the Right Lawyer

When selecting legal representation, choosing an attorney who focuses on employment law and has substantial experience with discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination cases is essential. Look for a firm with a demonstrated history of success, strong litigation skills, and a commitment to fighting for civil rights.

Conclusion: Taking Action Against Sexual Harassment and Coercive Workplace Relationships

Sexual harassment and coercive workplace relationships violate your legal rights, especially when shaped by power imbalances and institutional inaction. What may be presented as “consensual” is often, in reality, a product of grooming, fear, and retaliation. Employees must understand that workplace relationships influenced by professional dependency or the threat of adverse consequences may not be legally or ethically consensual.

Legal remedies exist. In light of recent decisions like Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, courts have clarified that employees do not need to show a loss of pay or demotion to prove adverse action under Title VII. This lower threshold makes it easier for victims of sexual harassment and coercive dynamics to seek justice.

Public-sector employees—such as those working in law enforcement—may also be protected under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal statute that allows lawsuits against government officials who violate constitutional rights, including the right to be free from sexual harassment and retaliation.

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.

Read the Verified Complaint