The Names Changed. The IAB Playbook Did Not.

New York, New York — May 31, 2026 — Eric Sanders, Esq., of The Sanders Firm, P.C. has filed a new human-rights lawsuit in Bronx County Supreme Court on behalf of NYPD Officer Shatorra J. Foster, alleging that the New York City Police Department, senior Internal Affairs Bureau officials, Special Investigations Unit command personnel, and Sergeant Trevlyn O. Headley maintained and ratified a contaminated disciplinary case after the Department’s own internal investigative materials allegedly showed that Headley was not a neutral complainant.

The lawsuit, Foster v. City of New York, et al., names the City of New York, Police Commissioner Jessica S. Tisch, former Chief of Internal Affairs Miguel A. Iglesias, Chief of Internal Affairs Edward A. Thompson, Deputy Chief Joseph A. DiBartolomeo, former Deputy Chief and IAB Executive Officer Chris D. Morello, Inspector Joseph F. Profeta, retired Inspector Dawit Fikru, and Sergeant Trevlyn O. Headley.

The complaint alleges that newly disclosed Special Investigations Unit (SIU) and Prosecutorial Wall (PW) investigative materials, turned over on May 27, 2026 during a pending Department Advocate prosecution, changed the posture of the case. According to the complaint, those disclosures revealed that the disciplinary case against Foster is built on false statements, fabricated evidence, and a contaminated narrative advanced by Headley and then adopted, relied upon, and ratified by Department decisionmakers.

“This case is about the Department’s decision to preserve a contaminated investigation after its own records showed the complainant-source was compromised,” said Eric Sanders, Esq., attorney for Foster. “The Department cannot change the names at the top of IAB, announce a new integrity regime, and then continue using the same playbook: accept the favored actor’s narrative, ignore contrary evidence, punish the person raising the alarm, and call the file complete.”

Foster previously asserted claims in Headley v. City of New York, et al., Index No. 155228/2025, pending in New York County Supreme Court. In that action, Foster alleged that Headley sexually harassed, coerced, retaliated against, abused her authority, and sexually assaulted her. The new Bronx action does not duplicate those pending claims. Instead, it focuses on what the Department and command-level defendants allegedly did after they knew, or should have known, that Headley’s allegations against Foster were false, retaliatory, self-protective, and materially contaminated.

The complaint alleges that the SIU and PW files substantially mirrored one another, carrying forward the same Foster-centered disciplinary narrative rather than functioning as a meaningful separation between investigative and prosecutorial material. According to the complaint, the purported wall did not prevent taint; it transmitted it.

Central to the complaint is the allegation that Headley was not merely a complainant. The Department’s own internal materials allegedly reflected that Headley was also a subject officer whose credibility, motive, Department-resource access, computer misuse, workplace conduct, demotion, and treatment of women were material to any fair investigation.

The complaint specifically alleges that, on or about November 15, 2023, during the early stage of what Foster describes as a highly coercive so-called “relationship,” Headley ran Foster in CPR/CPI, an NYPD computer system. The complaint alleges that this was not a collateral technical violation, but early Department-documented evidence that Headley used Department systems in connection with the same subordinate officer she later accused.

The complaint further alleges that SIU materials contained multiple warning signs concerning Headley, including the Witherspoon outcry, Gilbert materials, Headley allegation letters, prior Philadelphia assault-related discipline, criminal-side non-prosecution decisions, and Headley’s demotion. Rather than reassess the disciplinary case, the Department allegedly treated Foster’s outcries, anonymous complaints, 311 contacts, Department-resource concerns, and disclosures as misconduct while minimizing or compartmentalizing Headley-related evidence.

The timing of the IAB shakeup is also central to the lawsuit. The complaint alleges that, on or about December 18, 2024, Charges and Specifications were issued against Foster and signed by Inspector Joseph F. Profeta. The next day, then-IAB Executive Officer Chris D. Morello allegedly concurred in their issuance to the Police Commissioner. Within days, the NYPD entered a public and internal crisis following retired Lieutenant Quathisha Epps’s allegations against former Chief of Department Jeffrey B. Maddrey. In the aftermath, former Chief of Internal Affairs Miguel A. Iglesias was relieved, Morello was removed from his IAB post, Profeta was transferred out of IAB, and Edward A. Thompson was installed as Chief of Internal Affairs.

“The Department wants the public to believe that a leadership shuffle fixed IAB,” Sanders said. “But Foster’s complaint alleges the opposite. The names changed. The method did not. The same institution that claimed to be restoring integrity allegedly continued to ratify a disciplinary case after its own files showed that the case was contaminated.”

The complaint also alleges that retired Inspector Dawit Fikru authored an April 16, 2025 Commanding Officer Case Review acknowledging unresolved Headley-related allegations and investigative defects, including the improper removal of Witherspoon as a witness, the need to add Headley-related allegations, the need for Headley-related computer audits, and the need to keep Headley as a subject officer. Yet, according to the complaint, Fikru characterized the prior SIU work as “great work,” directed the team to “wrap it all up,” and continued to approve the Foster-centered investigative structure.

The Bronx complaint further alleges that after Foster filed her Verified Answer with Counterclaims on June 27, 2025, Headley was demoted within hours. Two days later, SIU allegedly uploaded both Foster’s counterclaims and the Finest message reflecting Headley’s demotion into the SIU file. Rather than treat those events as requiring reassessment, SIU allegedly removed Foster as a witness and updated the allegations against her as substantiated.

The complaint alleges that the Department did not open, conduct, or document any meaningful investigation into Foster’s counterclaims, including her allegation that Headley sexually assaulted her inside NYPD Headquarters on or about March 14, 2024. It further alleges that criminal-side review repeatedly failed to proceed, including the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office declination on April 18, 2025, yet the Department continued the internal disciplinary prosecution using criminalized allegations such as stalking, aggravated harassment, false reporting, and harassment.

On or about April 24, 2026, Foster was demoted from probationary detective to police officer only weeks before she would have completed her probationary period. The complaint alleges that this demotion converted the false, fabricated, and contaminated disciplinary narrative into a concrete career injury.

The lawsuit asserts claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law, including sexual harassment, hostile work environment, retaliation, victim-status discrimination, and aiding-and-abetting theories against the individual defendants.

“The point is not that every internal complaint automatically proves misconduct,” Sanders said. “The point is that when an agency possesses evidence that its complainant-source is compromised, it cannot pretend that context does not exist. It cannot punish the outcry source, ignore the counterclaims, refuse to investigate the sexual-assault allegation, and then claim the process was neutral.”

Foster seeks declaratory relief, equitable relief correcting or expunging tainted disciplinary records, restoration of rank and status, economic damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages against individual defendants where permitted by law, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief deemed just and proper.

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