Case 1:18-cv-00404-SJ-JO Document 12 Filed 05/28/18 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 37

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_________________________________________X
SHANTURAH BRATHWAITE
Plaintiff,

Case No.: 1:18-cv-00404-SJ-JO
-againstAMENDED VERIFIED
COMPLAINT

THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT in its
official capacity and JOHN DOES 1-10 in their individual

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

and official capacities

Defendants,
_________________________________________X
Plaintiff, SHANTURAH BRATHWAITE, through her attorney, Keith White, PLLC, as
and for her complaint against the CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE
DEPARTMENT and JOHN DOES 1-10 alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
1.

This is a cause of action in which Plaintiff alleges that she was subjected to

unlawful racial and sexual discrimination, including without limitation, a hostile work
environment, disparate treatment and illegal retaliation by the defendants in violation of Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), violations of
her First and Fourteenth Amendment Rights as well as various New York State and City Human
Rights Laws. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK through it’s
agency, THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT bears vicarious liability for the acts
of its JOHN DOE employees for reasons including, but not limited to, its failure to supervise its
employees and its failure to have in place policies and procedures for preventing first amendment
violations, sexual and racial discrimination, a hostile work environment, retaliation and
harassment.

 Case 1:18-cv-00404-SJ-JO Document 12 Filed 05/28/18 Page 2 of 18 PageID #: 38

2.

This action is instituted to redress violations of Plaintiff’s civil rights, which

occurred when defendants, acting under color of state law, regulation, custom or usage, deprived
Plaintiff of her rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and the laws of the
United States.
3.

Plaintiff is seeking, legal, equitable relief and injunctive relief, including costs,

lost wages, future earnings, reasonable attorney’s fees, compensatory and punitive damages, and
injunctive relief so as to render her whole from the discriminatory treatment she suffered and
continues to suffer from the violation of her constitutional rights.
4.

Plaintiff demands a Jury Trial.

____________________________

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and

1337, Title VII and 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(f) and under the Court’s pendant jurisdiction to hear
claims arising under State and local law.
6.

Venue is proper in the Eastern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1391(a) and Title VII, and 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(f) as the Plaintiff resides within the district
and Defendant maintains offices throughout the district.
7.

It is respectfully requested that the Court assume supplemental jurisdiction over

claims alleged to be in violation of the NYS Human Rights Law and the New York City Human
Rights Law that are so related to Plaintiff's First Amendment, Title VII and Sections 1981 and

 Case 1:18-cv-00404-SJ-JO Document 12 Filed 05/28/18 Page 3 of 18 PageID #: 39

1983 claims as to form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States
Constitution.
8.

The assumption of supplemental jurisdiction by the Court is authorized by 28

U.S.C. § 1367.
PARTIES
9.

Plaintiff is an African-American female and resident of Kings County, New York.

Plaintiff is also a Police Officer at THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, an
agency of the CITY OF NEW YORK. Plaintiff has been employed by THE NEW YORK CITY
POLICE DEPARTMENT since July 11, 2005.
10.

Plaintiff is an “employee” of THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT,

an agency of the CITY OF NEW YORK, within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e and thus
afforded protection against racial and sexual discrimination, harassment and retaliation.
11.

Defendant the CITY OF NEW YORK (CITY), is a municipal corporation

organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York exercising
governmental authority.
12.

Defendant THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT (NYPD), was and

is a department, agency, bureau and/or subdivision of the City and is an employer within the
meaning of Title VII, as it is an agency of the City of New York with more than 500 employees
doing business in the Eastern District and the State of New York. Defendant NYPD also
maintains a business in an office at 1 Police Plaza, New York, NY 10038.
13.

Defendants “John Does” 1 - 10 are individuals whose identities are currently

unknown, but who have infringed Plaintiff’s federal and state rights in direct violation and

 Case 1:18-cv-00404-SJ-JO Document 12 Filed 05/28/18 Page 4 of 18 PageID #: 40

contravention of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 et seq. and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 et seq. The identity of these
individuals will become known with discovery.
14.

At all relevant times herein, Defendants John Does were in a position to retaliate

against Plaintiff in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
15.

At all times relevant herein, Defendants CITY and NYPD were and still are

Plaintiff’s employer.
16.

Plaintiff became an employee of Defendants CITY and NYPD in July of 2005.

17.

Upon Plaintiff’s hiring, Plaintiff was assigned to various precincts in New York

18.

Plaintiff performed her job competently and professionally.

19.

Plaintiff is married to Russ Smith, Sr. (Smith), an entrepreneur and community

City.

leader in Harlem, New York City. To whit, Smith owns a barbershop within the confines of the
32nd Precinct and coordinates community events where the local 32nd precinct of the NYPD
fellowship with one another.
20.

On May 5, 2015 Plaintiff was assigned to the 32nd precinct in Harlem and

working an overtime shift.
21.

On May 5, 2015 Smith was approached by officers within the confines of the 32nd

precinct and accused of obstruction of governmental administration. Smith was eventually
arrested by these same officers and accused of assaulting an officer, resisting arrest and other
charges.

 Case 1:18-cv-00404-SJ-JO Document 12 Filed 05/28/18 Page 5 of 18 PageID #: 41

22.

Since Plaintiff was working within the confines of the 32nd precinct and in the

passenger seat of a vehicle driven by a supervisor when Smith was arrested, Plaintiff was one of
several additional officers who responded to the scene of Smith’s arrest.
23.

Upon arriving at the scene of Smith’s arrest, Plaintiff was directed by a male

supervising officer to leave the scene of the arrest and return to the 32nd precinct to await further
instructions. Plaintiff followed these directions and returned to the 32nd precinct as directed.
24.

Upon returning to the 32nd precinct on May 5, 2015, a male supervising officer

instructed Plaintiff to leave the precinct and stand outside of the precinct to await further
instructions. Plaintiff waited several hours for instructions and then signed out of work at
approximately 11pm when directed to by Plaintiff’s commanding officer. Plaintiff observed that
no male or white officers were being treated in this manner and subjected to hours of standing
with no instructions, answers or guidance. Further, Plaintiff observed that other male officers did
not speak to Plaintiff although Plaintiff was clearly in uniform and on duty. Plaintiff documented
this discriminatory treatment to investigators in a subsequent report and interview. Plaintiff
observed that when white male officers’ family members have contact with the criminal justice
system, white male officers are not subject to the same scrutiny and ostracizing as Plaintiff.
25.

Several months later, based on her exemplary and professional work performance,

Plaintiff was promoted to the Internal Affairs Bureau of the NYPD and placed on an 18-month
track to be promoted to Detective.
26.

On approximately October 19, 2016, the Plaintiff reported to NYPD investigators

that Plaintiff was racially and sexually discriminated against on May 5, 2015 and Smith was
falsely arrested, racially profiled and unlawfully discriminated against by the NYPD. Plaintiff

 Case 1:18-cv-00404-SJ-JO Document 12 Filed 05/28/18 Page 6 of 18 PageID #: 42

reported that Plaintiff was isolated and sexually and racially discriminated against in the
workplace on May 5, 2015.
27.

Subsequently, the charges against Smith from the evening of May 5, 2015 were

dismissed. Plaintiff and Smith retained counsel with the intention of suing the NYPD for
discrimination, false arrest, excessive force and other charges.
28.

The NYPD eventually settled and paid Smith to resolve Smith’s claims.

29.

It was the duty of each of the defendants to insure that members of the NYPD

were treated with fairness and to affirmatively take steps to prevent retaliation for attempts by
members to seek redress for grievances.
30.

Upon information and belief, JOHN DOES agents, servants or employees of the

CITY and NYPD became aware Plaintiff’s complaints of employment discrimination and racial
profiling and decided to retaliate against Plaintiff.
31.

Subsequently, the Plaintiff was demoted from the Internal Affairs Bureau,

transferred to the 42nd precinct and taken off track to be promoted to Detective. Additionally,
Plaintiff became the subject of aggressive but baseless investigations and meritless departmental
charges.
32.

Following Plaintiff’s complaints of racial and sexual discrimination as well as

NYPD’s discriminatory practices with black men, on various occasions, Plaintiff’s vehicle was
followed by members of defendant’s covert surveillance teams and Plaintiff was personally
followed by defendant’s secret surveillance teams.
33.
defendants.

Additionally, Plaintiff’s phone records were subpoenaed and investigated by

 Case 1:18-cv-00404-SJ-JO Document 12 Filed 05/28/18 Page 7 of 18 PageID #: 43

34.

To whit, Defendants charged Plaintiff with failure to safeguard a police placard

although defendants have never observed or accused Plaintiff of losing or misplacing her police
placard and NYPD has never observed Plaintiff’s police placard outside of Plaintiff’s vehicle.
Additionally, NYPD has charged Plaintiff with leaving her post and not working overtime on
May 5, 2015 although all of the sworn statements taken from NYPD employees support a
narrative indicating that Plaintiff followed direct orders from Plaintiff’s supervisors and there is
no evidence to dispute Plaintiff’s contention that Plaintiff worked her overtime shift. Further,
NYPD has charged Plaintiff with prejudicial conduct on May 5, 2015 although all sworn
statements taken from NYPD employees present on May 5, 2015 support the narrative that
Plaintiff arrived after the arrest of Smith and did not interfere with the arrest or investigation.
35.

The defendants either affirmatively participated in or suffered such retaliation to

continue unabated, all violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution.
36.

The foregoing acts were done to the plaintiff with knowledge that such conduct

by persons acting under color of state authority were in violation of the plaintiff’s constitutional
rights.
37.

Now Plaintiff, a black female, has been demoted and faces departmental

disciplinary charges for wholly unsubstantiated claims because she alleged that she was
discriminated against on dates including May 5, 2015 and reporting that her husband, Smith, was
falsely arrested and is filing discrimination claims against the NYPD.
38.

Plaintiff was subjected to a series of adverse employment actions and deprived of

assignments which normally should be granted upon seniority and other entitlement
considerations by defendants, acting under color state law, all in retaliation for plaintiffs

 Case 1:18-cv-00404-SJ-JO Document 12 Filed 05/28/18 Page 8 of 18 PageID #: 44

reporting discrimination and for speaking out on matters of public concern with the NYPD
Internal Affairs Bureau investigators.
39.

Conversely, upon information and belief, no white or male officer of NYPD has

ever faced departmental charges for failure to safeguard a placard that was not lost, stolen and
simply remained in the subject officer’s vehicle.
40.

Upon information and belief, no white or male officer of NYPD has ever faced

departmental charges for not working overtime when no evidence has been introduced or
deduced to indicate the contrary.
41.

Upon information and belief, no white or male officer of NYPD has ever faced

departmental charges for prejudicial conduct when there has been no evidence deduced or
introduced to establish said charge.
42.

Upon information and belief, Defendant NYPD and it’s Defendant John Does

used Plaintiff’s race, sex and retaliation as the motivating factor in their filing and sustaining
baseless charges against Plaintiff.
43.

Additionally, upon information and belief, Defendant NYPD and it’s Defendant

John Does used Plaintiff’s race, sex and retaliation as the motivating factor in their failure to
recommend Plaintiff for promotion and/or to promote Plaintiff to Detective.
44.

The aforementioned acts and conduct by Defendants and/or it’s agents, servants

or employees were performed with malice and reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s protected civil
rights.
45.

The aforementioned acts and conduct by Defendants, their agents, servants and/or

employees were intentional, willful, wanton, malicious and outrageous.

 Case 1:18-cv-00404-SJ-JO Document 12 Filed 05/28/18 Page 9 of 18 PageID #: 45

46.

This pattern of racial and sexual discriminatory conduct by NYPD is so rampant

and blatant that supervising officers of the NYPD are afraid to confront the culture of racism,
sexism and retaliation.
47.

To whit, in an effort to retaliate against Plaintiff, Defendant NYPD and John Does

opened up an investigation into Deputy Inspector Michael Davidson (Davidson), an African
American high ranking police official with no personal relationship to Plaintiff or Smith.
However, because Davidson is African American and was the commanding officer of the 32nd
precinct on May 5, 2015, NYPD and John Does subpoenaed the phone records and all
background information on Plaintiff, Smith and Davidson in an attempt to build a case for
departmental charges against Davidson. Davidson was eventually transferred from the 32nd
precinct and replaced with a white commanding officer.
48.

Upon information and belief, African American supervisors who attempt to

eliminate discrimination within their Commands are made the subject of Internal Affairs charges
by other officers, are disobeyed with impunity by their subordinates, and at the most extreme, are
placed in physical danger by their subordinates. Thus, the disciplinary system is part and parcel
of the pattern and practice of discrimination and the preservation of that pattern and practice
within the NYPD.
49.

Upon information and belief, the entire investigation and disciplinary system

within the NYPD is a mechanism through which discrimination based on color, sex, race and
national origin is perpetuated rather than exposed and eradicated.
50.

Upon information and belief, African American officers comprise less than 20%

of the uniformed NYPD, yet more than 20% of all formal disciplinary charges brought by the
NYPD involve African American uniformed officers.

 Case 1:18-cv-00404-SJ-JO Document 12 Filed 05/28/18 Page 10 of 18 PageID #: 46

51.

While this may seem like a new phenomenon, the disparate treatment of women

and African Americans by the NYPD has a long historical context. Upon information and belief,
during the period of 1987 through 1996, Caucasian officers were disciplined at an average rate of
25.8 per 1,000 while all minority officers’ rate was 42.7 per 1000.
52.

When broken down, upon information and belief, Caucasian male officers were

disciplined at an average rate of 26.5 per 1,000 while African American male officers rate was
53.5 and the African American female rate was 38.9 per 1,000 compared to the Caucasian female
rate of 19.4 per 1,000.
53.

This divergence in discipline is both disparate treatment as it is intentional, and

has a disparate impact. Thus, the disciplinary procedure has an intentional adverse affect on
Plaintiff and obviously Plaintiff’s spouse, Smith.
54.

At all times material to this action, Defendant has acted under color or custom or

usage of law and continues to so act.
55.

Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her race and sex and

retaliated against Plaintiff for speaking out against NYPD’s discriminatory practices.
56.

This pattern of racially discriminatory conduct has continued in the face of

Plaintiff throughout her employment.
57.

Plaintiff notices that while employed at NYPD, when black employees of NYPD

are charged or accused with the same conduct as similarly situated white employees of NYPD,
black employees of NYPD are dealt much harsher disciplinary consequences.
58.

While Plaintiff is presently facing disciplinary actions from Defendant NYPD,

Plaintiff maintains that these disciplinary actions were the result of NYPD’s attempt to create a
racially hostile work environment for black employees. This is evidenced by the many various

 Case 1:18-cv-00404-SJ-JO Document 12 Filed 05/28/18 Page 11 of 18 PageID #: 47

cases of black employees being disciplined by NYPD and necessitating the hiring of independent
counsel to have their grievances remedied.
59.

This pattern of inequity and racial discrimination is the culture fostered and

encouraged by NYPD.
60.

In August of 2017 Plaintiff sent a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC) to formally file Sex and Racial Discrimination Charges against THE NEW
YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT.
61.

On October 23, 2017, the EEOC issued a Right-to-Sue letter (Attached hereto as

Exhibit A) in this matter.
62.

This action is timely commenced within the ninety (90) day statutory period in

which a Plaintiff in possession of a Right-to-Sue letter may bring an action.
63.

By reason of the foregoing, the plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer

humiliation, harassment, stress, mental anguish and fear for her personal safety and career path
expectations beyond that which normally would attach to his position, and which conditions
were and remain in retaliation for her filing of his lawsuit and for speaking out on matters of
public concern.

AS FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION in Violation of the First Amendment and
42 U.S.C. § 1983)
64.

The foregoing paragraphs are realleged and incorporated by reference herein.

The conduct of the defendants as alleged at length herein constitutes First Amendment
Retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

 Case 1:18-cv-00404-SJ-JO Document 12 Filed 05/28/18 Page 12 of 18 PageID #: 48

65. All of the acts and conduct of the Defendants herein, including but not limited to
subjecting Plaintiff to extra scrutiny, the initiation of retaliatory investigations,
demotions via transfer, retaliatory prosecution of baseless disciplinary proceedings and
threats of penalties, were done under color of State law and custom and practice while
performing their duties as agents for the NYPD.
66. Plaintiff has been unlawfully subjected to a hostile working environment and
harassment in retaliation for exercising her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to
free speech. The aforementioned conduct on the part of the Defendants was without
cause or justification and violated Plaintiff’s rights, privileges and immunities as
guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution as well as the
Constitution of the State of New York and the New York State Division of Human
Rights Law.
67. The plaintiff had a constitutionally protected right under the First and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution for redress of grievances, which right
was exercised by the plaintiff, by voicing her concerns to investigators on matters of
public concern.
68. The defendants did retaliate against plaintiff for voicing her concerns on matters of
public concern by subjecting her to extra scrutiny, the initiation of serious
investigations and demotions via transfers without taking appropriate supervisory
action.
69. The actions of the Defendants in depriving Plaintiff of her constitutional and civil
rights were willful and malicious acts.

 Case 1:18-cv-00404-SJ-JO Document 12 Filed 05/28/18 Page 13 of 18 PageID #: 49

70. The defendants effected their policy and practice to retaliate against officers who
complained of discrimination in subjecting the plaintiff to the above action.
71. The defendants have as their policy and practice an unwritten but compelling norm
known as the “Blue wall of silence” which states that an officer shall not damage a
fellow officer in any way.
72. It is the policy and practice of defendants to institute formal Administrative Charges
against individuals who file grievances against defendants and/or who break the blue
wall of silence.
73. It is also the policy and practice of defendants to discipline minority officers in a more
severe manner than non-minority officers
74. As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants’ unlawful, discriminatory and
harassing conduct, Plaintiff has suffered loss of benefits and privileges of her
employment with “NYPD”, damaged professionally and economically, suffered
humiliation as well as emotional pain and suffering.

AS FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Racial Discrimination in Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
42 U.S.C. § 2000e)
75.

The foregoing paragraphs are realleged and incorporated by reference herein.

76.

The conduct of the defendants as alleged at length herein constitutes racial

discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e.

 Case 1:18-cv-00404-SJ-JO Document 12 Filed 05/28/18 Page 14 of 18 PageID #: 50

77.

By engaging in the foregoing conduct, Defendants acted with malice or with

reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42
U.S.C. § 2000e.

AS FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Sexual Discrimination in Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
42 U.S.C. § 2000e)
78.

The foregoing paragraphs are realleged and incorporated by reference herein.

79.

The conduct of the defendants as alleged at length herein constitutes sexual

discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e.
By engaging in the foregoing conduct, Defendants acted with malice or with reckless disregard
for Plaintiff’s rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e.

AS FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Retaliation in Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §
2000e, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981)
80.

The foregoing paragraphs are realleged and incorporated by reference herein.

81.

The conduct of the Defendants as alleged at length herein, including but not

limited to their attempts to discredit and intimidate Plaintiff, constitutes retaliation in violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
82.

By engaging in the foregoing conduct, Defendants acted with malice or with

reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

 Case 1:18-cv-00404-SJ-JO Document 12 Filed 05/28/18 Page 15 of 18 PageID #: 51

AS FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of New York State Human Rights Law § 296)
83.

The foregoing paragraphs are realleged and incorporated by reference herein.

84.

The Defendants’ conduct as alleged at length herein, including but not limited to

acts that contributed to the creation of a hostile work environment constitute violations of New
York State Human Rights Law § 296.
85.

By engaging in the foregoing conduct, Defendants acted with malice or with

reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights under New York State Human Rights Law § 296 causing
him to suffer economic damages.
AS FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of New York City Human Rights Law § 8-107)
86.

The foregoing paragraphs are realleged and incorporated by reference herein.

87.

The conduct of the Defendants as alleged at length herein, constitutes violations

of New York City Human Rights Law § 8-107.
88.

By engaging in the foregoing conduct, Defendants acted with malice or with

reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights under New York City Human Rights Law § 8-107.
89.

As a result of Defendants' conduct, the Plaintiff is entitled to monetary and

punitive damages.

 Case 1:18-cv-00404-SJ-JO Document 12 Filed 05/28/18 Page 16 of 18 PageID #: 52

AS FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Plaintiff deprived of her rights under the Thirteenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States as protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1981)
90.

The foregoing paragraphs are realleged and incorporated by reference herein.

91.

The discriminatory conduct of the defendants was so widespread, permanent and

well-settled so as to constitute the official policy, practice or custom of the Defendant NYPD.
92.

Defendant NYPD, acting under color of law and pursuant to their official policy,

practice or custom, intentionally, knowingly and/or with deliberate indifference for the rights of
Plaintiff, discriminated against her when they filed and sustained frivolous charges against
Plaintiff and failed to promote Plaintiff to Detective on the basis of her race and sex.
93.

As a direct and proximate cause of the Defendant NYPD acts’ set forth herein,

Plaintiff was deprived of her rights under the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States as protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
94.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant NYPD as set forth herein, Plaintiff

suffered loss of income and benefits as well as emotional distress and mental anguish.
95.

The acts of Defendants as set forth herein violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

By engaging in the foregoing conduct, Defendants acted with malice or with reckless
disregard for Plaintiff’s rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C.
§ 1981.

AS FOR A EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Plaintiff deprived of her rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States as protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
96.

The foregoing paragraphs are realleged and incorporated by reference herein.

 Case 1:18-cv-00404-SJ-JO Document 12 Filed 05/28/18 Page 17 of 18 PageID #: 53

97.

The discriminatory conduct of the defendants was so widespread, permanent and

well-settled so as to constitute the official policy, practice or custom of the Defendant NYPD.
98.

Defendant NYPD, acting under color of law and pursuant to their official policy,

practice or custom, intentionally, knowingly and/or with deliberate indifference for the rights of
Plaintiff, discriminated against her when they filed and sustained frivolous charges against
Plaintiff and failed to promote Plaintiff to Detective on the basis of her race and sex.
99.

As a direct and proximate cause of the Defendant NYPD acts’ set forth herein,

Plaintiff was deprived of her rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States as protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
100.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant NYPD as set forth herein, Plaintiff

suffered loss of income and benefits as well as emotional distress and mental anguish.
101.

The acts of Defendants as set forth herein violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

By engaging in the foregoing conduct, Defendants acted with malice or with reckless
disregard for Plaintiff’s rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C.
§ 1981.

AS FOR A NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of New York City Human Rights Law § 8-101)
102.

The foregoing paragraphs are realleged and incorporated by reference herein.

103.

Plaintiff’s complaints of discrimination and speaking out on matters of public

concern were a protected activity under New York City Human Rights Law, 1 NYC
Admin. Code section 8-101 et seq.
104.

The New York City Human Rights Law, 1 NYC Admin. Code section 8-101 et

seq. prohibits retaliation.

 Case 1:18-cv-00404-SJ-JO Document 12 Filed 05/28/18 Page 18 of 18 PageID #: 54

105.

The aforesaid conduct constituted unlawful retaliation in violation of New York

city Human Rights Law.
106.

As a direct and proximate result of the discriminatory and unlawful retaliation and

the intentional disregard for her rights, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer
emotional distress, humiliation, anxiety, damage to her professional reputation and
career, and disruption of her professional and personal life.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff SHANTURAH BRATHWAITE requests that this
Court enter judgment against the Defendants ordering the individual defendants to compensate
Plaintiff for the racial discrimination, harassment and hostile work environment that she was
forced to endure; ordering the individual defendants to compensate Plaintiff for their illegal
retaliation against her; granting any injunctive relief as may be appropriate; awarding Plaintiff
costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and directing such other and further relief as the Court may
deem proper.
Dated: May 26, 2018
Brooklyn, NY

By:

__/s/ Keith White_______________
KEITH WHITE, PLLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SHANTURAH BRATHWAITE
198A Rogers Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11225
718-403-9261

 Case Document 12-1 Filed 05/28/18 Page 1 of 1 PageID 55

 

 

VERIFICATION
STATE OF A/y 
)ss:
COUNTY OF 

I, Shanturah Brathwaite, am the named Plaintiff in the foregoing action. I have read the
Amended Veri?ed Complaint and know its contents. I am informed and believe, and on
that ground allege, that the factual matters stated therein are true. The matters stated are
true to my own knowledge, except as to those matters that are stated on information and

belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

 

?nturah Brathwaite

Sworn to before me this  ?day

 

 

of May 4015?
YVETTE HAWKINS
NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF NEW YORK
NEW YORK couuw
LIC. 01HA5068606
TARY BLI COMMISSION EXPIRES NOVEMBER 4,2013

 

 

Case Document 12-2 Filed 05/28/18 Page 1 of 1 PageID 56

  

U.S. partment of Justice

Civil rights Division

OF RIGHT TO SUE WITHIN 90 DAYS
AIL Avenue, N. W.

7003 0500 0002 5071 6066 Karen Ferguson. EMP, PHB, Room 4701
Washington, DC 20530

 

 

October 23, 2017
Ms. Shanturah Brathwaite
c/o Keith White, Esquire
Attorney at Law
198A Rogers Ave.

Brooklyn, NY 1 1225

Re: EEOC Charge Against New York  Police Dept.
No. 520201703140

Dear Ms. Brathwaite:

Because you ?led the above charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the
Commission has determined that it will not be able to investigate and conciliate that charge within 180
days of the date the Commission assumed jurisdiction over the charge and the Department has
determined that it will not ?le any lawsuit(s) based thereon within that time, and because you through
your attorney have speci?cally requested this Notice, you are hereby noti?ed that you have the right to
institute a civil action under Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000c, et
seq., against the above-named respondent.

if you choose to commence a civil action, such suit must be filed in the appropriate Court within 90
days of your receipt of this Notice.

The investigative ?le pertaining to your case is located in the EEOC New York District Of?ce, New
York, NY.

This Notice should not be taken to mean that the Department of Justice has made ajudgment as to
whether or not your case is meritorious.

Sincerely,

John M. Gore
Acting Assistant Attorney General
Civ' Rights Division

. lute/T") 6%

Karen L. Ferguson
Supervisory Civil Rights Analyst 
Employment Litigation Section

 

cc: New York District Of?ce, EEOC .
New York City Police Dept.