I. Introduction
Lieutenant Emelio C. Rodriques unequivocally stands by the allegations in his EEOC Charge of Discrimination, which exposes a pattern of corruption, discrimination, and retaliation within the NYPD’s 34th Precinct. His charge details fraudulent overtime practices, targeted discrimination against Black and Caribbean officers, and abuse of authority by ranking officials. The timing of Sergeant Christina Ortiz’s lawsuit—filed only after his EEOC complaint became public—confirms that it is nothing more than a retaliatory attack designed to intimidate a whistleblower.
Ortiz’s lawsuit, which includes claims of gender and caretaker association discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, and defamation, is a legally baseless attempt to weaponize the courts in response to lawful whistleblowing activities. The law does not allow disgruntled supervisors to use civil litigation as a tool of retribution against officers who expose corruption and misconduct.
II. Legal Defenses and Motion for Dismissal Under CPLR 3211
If the New York City Law Department does not represent Lieutenant Rodriques, then as his counsel, I will immediately seek dismissal of Ortiz’s lawsuit under CPLR 3211(a)(1), (a)(5), (a)(7) and (g) on the following grounds:
Lack of Factual Support (CPLR 3211(a)(1)) – Ortiz’s employment history and prior actions contradict her allegations. Despite her claims of discrimination and retaliation, she never raised any complaints against Lieutenant Rodriques until after his EEOC charge became public. This timeline strongly suggests that her lawsuit is retaliatory and lacks a factual basis.
Preclusion by Federal and State Law (CPLR 3211(a)(5)) – Ortiz’s defamation claim is barred as a matter of law because statements made in EEOC complaints and legal filings are privileged. Her claim attacks protected speech under federal and state law, making it unenforceable in court.
Failure to State a Claim (CPLR 3211(a)(7)) – Ortiz’s lawsuit fails to meet the legal threshold for gender discrimination, caretaker association discrimination, or retaliation. She was promoted to Sergeant Special Assignment, an ‘alleged’ highly selective discretionary position held by fewer than 50 women in the NYPD. This directly contradicts her claims of gender-based mistreatment and undermines her allegations of a hostile work environment.
New York’s Anti-SLAPP Law (CPLR 3211(g)) – This lawsuit is an apparent attempt to punish protected speech and deter legal action against the NYPD. CPLR 3211(g) mandates early dismissal of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) and allows the court to award mandatory sanctions and attorneys’ fees against the plaintiff and her attorney.
III. The Retaliatory Nature of Ortiz’s Lawsuit
The timing of Ortiz’s claims exposes them as a calculated act of retaliation against Lieutenant Rodriques for filing his EEOC Charge of Discrimination.
- Before Lieutenant Rodriques exposed misconduct at the 34th Precinct, Ortiz never made any allegations against him.
- One day after his EEOC complaint became public, Ortiz suddenly filed a 2,252-word internal complaint with the NYPD, which forms the basis of her lawsuit.
- Her lawsuit was filed only after Lieutenant Rodriques refused to withdraw from his legal claims.
This textbook retaliation case directly violates federal and New York laws. Instead of addressing the misconduct and discriminatory policies detailed in the EEOC Charge, Ortiz and her attorney have chosen to attack the whistleblower rather than address the corruption he exposed.
IV. Lieutenant Rodriques Will File Another EEOC Charge Alleging Retaliation Against the NYPD and Ortiz
Lieutenant Rodriques will not be intimidated by retaliatory litigation. He will be filing a retaliation claim against both the NYPD and Ortiz individually under:
- Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
- The Civil Rights Act of 1871
- New York State Human Rights Law
- New York City Human Rights Law
Retaliation is strictly prohibited under both federal and New York law. Any attempt to harm, intimidate, or discredit an employee for lawfully filing a discrimination complaint is actionable and subject to severe legal consequences.
Lieutenant Rodriques will also seek personal liability against Ortiz for her malicious and retaliatory conduct and legal sanctions against her attorney under CPLR 8303-a for pursuing frivolous litigation.
V. The Defenses Against Ortiz’s Legal Claims
Gender Discrimination & Hostile Work Environment – her career trajectory contradicts Ortiz’s claim. She received multiple promotions, alleged high-performance reviews, and elite assignments, making her claim of gender-based mistreatment highly suspect.
Caretaker Association Discrimination – Ortiz’s allegations are unsupported and legally unsubstantiated. Her association with female officers who are caretakers does not provide a viable legal basis for a claim.
Retaliation – The only clear retaliation case here is Ortiz’s lawsuit against Lieutenant Rodriques. She, not he, is the retaliator.
VI. Defamation Defenses and Legal Protections
Ortiz’s defamation claim is legally baseless and subject to immediate dismissal under New York law and common law defenses. Her lawsuit is an apparent attempt to suppress protected speech and retaliate against Rodriques for his legally protected EEOC complaint.
1. Lack of Actual Malice (CPLR 3211(a)(1))
As a public figure within the NYPD, Ortiz must prove actual malice—meaning Rodriques either made statements knowing they were false or with reckless disregard for the truth.
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (established that public officials and figures must prove actual malice in defamation cases).
- St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (1968) (clarified that reckless disregard requires a high degree of awareness of probable falsity).
- Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (1989) (held that failure to investigate alone is not sufficient to prove actual malice).
- Prozeralik v. Capital Cities Communications, Inc., 82 N.Y.2d 466 (1993) (reaffirmed that actual malice must be proven by clear and convincing evidence).
Since Rodriques’ EEOC charge is supported by documented incidents and a history of workplace disputes, Ortiz cannot meet the legal threshold for defamation.
2. Absolute Privilege (CPLR 3211(a)(5))
Statements made in official complaints and legal filings, including EEOC charges, are privileged under New York law. Courts have consistently held that statements made in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings cannot serve as the basis for a defamation claim.
- Rosenberg v. MetLife, Inc., 8 N.Y.3d 359 (2007) (held that absolute privilege applies to statements in quasi-judicial proceedings).
- Front, Inc. v. Khalil, 24 N.Y.3d 713 (2015) (extended absolute privilege to pre-litigation communications).
- Martirano v. Frost, 25 N.Y.2d 505 (1969) (confirmed that statements in judicial proceedings are privileged if they are pertinent).
Since Rodriques’ statements were made in the context of an EEOC charge, Ortiz cannot establish liability as a matter of law. Her attempt to litigate this issue is a frivolous abuse of the legal system and a misuse of the courts to silence a whistleblower.
3. Failure to State a Claim (CPLR 3211(a)(7))
Ortiz has not alleged any false statement of fact capable of a defamatory meaning. Even if she disagrees with Rodriques’ EEOC charge allegations, his statements remain protected opinions, legal assertions, and privileged reports.
- Brian v. Richardson, 87 N.Y.2d 46 (1995) (held that expressions of opinion are not actionable as defamation).
- Gross v. New York Times Co., 82 N.Y.2d 146 (1993) (distinguished between statements of fact and opinion, holding that only the former can be defamatory).
- Stepanov v. Dow Jones & Co., Inc., 120 A.D.3d 28 (1st Dep’t 2014) (reiterated that a viable defamation claim must be based on a false statement of fact, not opinion).
- Rinaldi v. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 42 N.Y.2d 369 (1977) (held that fair and accurate reports of judicial proceedings are protected).
New York defamation law requires that a statement be false and defamatory, neither of which Ortiz has adequately alleged.
4. Common Law Defenses
Truth
Under New York law, truth is an absolute defense against defamation. Ortiz’s complaint fails to prove that Rodriques’ statements are false, and she bears the burden of establishing falsity.
- Konikoff v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 234 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 2000) (reaffirmed that a defamation claim cannot proceed if the statements are factual).
- Freeman v. Johnston, 84 N.Y.2d 52 (1994) (confirmed that proving falsity rests on the plaintiff).
- Fairley v. Peekskill Star Corp., 83 A.D.2d 294 (2d Dep’t 1981) (held that substantial truth is sufficient to defeat a defamation claim).
Opinion
Statements that express an opinion rather than assert a provable fact are protected speech and cannot be defamatory. Any reasonable reader would interpret Rodriques’ EEOC allegations as his perspective on workplace discrimination, not as verifiable facts.
- Immuno AG v. Moor-Jankowski, 77 N.Y.2d 235 (1991) (held that pure opinions that do not imply false facts are protected under the New York Constitution).
- Mann v. Abel, 10 N.Y.3d 271 (2008) (confirmed that even offensive opinions are protected speech).
- Davis v. Boeheim, 24 N.Y.3d 262 (2014) (clarified that distinguishing between fact and opinion depends on whether the statement implies a basis in undisclosed facts).
Fair Report Privilege
New York law protects fair and accurate reports of official proceedings, including administrative complaints. Since the EEOC charge is part of a formal legal process, any reporting is shielded from defamation liability.
- Cholowsky v. Civiletti, 69 A.D.3d 110 (2d Dep’t 2009) (confirmed that fair and accurate reports of judicial proceedings are privileged).
- Holy Spirit Ass’n for Unification of World Christianity v. New York Times Co., 49 N.Y.2d 63 (1979) (held that the fair report privilege applies as long as the report is substantially accurate).
5. Retaliatory and Frivolous Nature of the Claim
Ortiz’s defamation claim is a textbook example of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). This lawsuit was filed only after Rodriques’ EEOC charge became public, making it a clear act of retaliation.
Under New York’s Anti-SLAPP law, defamation claims that target protected speech on matters of public concern—such as workplace discrimination complaints—are subject to early dismissal and mandatory sanctions, including attorneys’ fees.
- Guerrero v. Carva, 10 A.D.3d 105 (1st Dep’t 2004) (recognized that lawsuits designed to silence free speech on public issues are subject to dismissal under Anti-SLAPP statutes).
- Palin v. New York Times Co., 940 F.3d 804 (2d Cir. 2019) (discussed how Anti-SLAPP laws protect defendants from meritless defamation claims related to public discourse).
- Huggins v. Povitch, 1996 WL 515498 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 1996) (reinforced that defamation claims intended to suppress criticism or legal action may be subject to sanctions).
6. Failure to Plead Special Damages
Ortiz fails to allege any concrete harm beyond vague reputational claims. New York defamation law requires specific and quantifiable damages.
- Dillon v. City of New York, 261 A.D.2d 34 (1st Dep’t 1999) (held that defamation claims must allege actual harm, not just speculative reputational injury).
- Matherson v. Marchello, 100 A.D.2d 233 (2d Dep’t 1984) (established that special damages must be specifically pleaded and proven).
- Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d 429 (1992) (reaffirmed that vague harm claims are insufficient to sustain a defamation action).
Since Ortiz has not suffered any measurable financial or professional harm, her defamation claim fails as a matter of law.
VII. History of Ortiz’s Attorney and Prior Frivolous Lawsuits
Sergeant Ortiz’s attorney, John Scola, has a well-documented history of filing frivolous lawsuits against law enforcement officers. His most infamous case involved Pedro ‘BigBank Pablo’ Hernandez, a violent career criminal, a member of the Hilltop Gang, who became a poster boy for bail reform before being convicted of burglary. After the takedown of gang-related criminal enterprise The Lyman Place Crew (LPC), other gang-related criminal enterprises such as B-Road Goons, Sex, Money and Murder Crew, The Little Wash Side Crew, and The 20 Block Crew, including The Hill Top Crew led by Mr. Pedro Hernandez aka Pablo ‘BigBank Pablo’ Hernandez began a campaign of filing ‘false’ allegations of corruption and ‘frivolous’ civil rights lawsuits against Detective David Terrell, Detective Daniel Brady, Sergeant Adrian Uruci, other members of the 42nd Precinct and the Bronx District Attorney’s Office.
Despite Hernandez’s extensive criminal history, Scola filed multiple baseless lawsuits against NYPD Detective David Terrell, all dismissed. These cases were nothing more than harassment tactics against law enforcement.
The same playbook is now being used against Lieutenant Rodriques. Just as every case against Detective Terrell collapsed, Ortiz’s case will meet the same fate. But this time, Scola and his client will be held accountable for abusing the legal system.
VIII. Ortiz’s Strategic Avoidance of Public Corruption and Misconduct Allegations
Ortiz’s lawsuit conspicuously omits and fails to rebut the serious public corruption and misconduct allegations outlined in Rodriques’ EEOC charge. This calculated omission underscores her claims’ retaliatory and pretextual nature, reinforcing the argument that her lawsuit is nothing more than an attempt to silence a whistleblower and divert attention away from systemic misconduct within the NYPD.
1. Failure to Address Public Corruption and Misconduct Allegations
Rodriques’ EEOC charge exposed serious claims of favoritism, unethical promotions, and internal misconduct within the NYPD. Notably:
- Ortiz was awarded a discretionary promotion to Sergeant Special Assignment—a designation allegedly reserved for elite officers—yet she fails to explain how she qualified for this selective role.
- The favoritism and corruption alleged in the EEOC complaint raise legitimate concerns about whether Ortiz’s promotion was based on merit or improper influence.
- Rather than address these allegations directly, Ortiz sidesteps them entirely and pivots to discrimination and retaliation claims.
2. The Timing of Ortiz’s Lawsuit Exposes Its Retaliatory Purpose
Ortiz filed her lawsuit only after Rodriques’ EEOC charge became public. This is a classic retaliatory tactic designed to:
- Discredit Rodriques before his claims could be thoroughly investigated.
- Framing this as a personal dispute rather than a systemic issue will deter further scrutiny of the NYPD’s internal misconduct.
- Weaponize the court system to suppress a legitimate whistleblower claim.
This timing aligns with textbook examples of retaliatory litigation, which courts have consistently recognized as unlawful. See Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (holding that retaliatory acts, including legal action, violate Title VII when intended to deter protected activity).
3. Attempt to Deflect Attention from Internal Misconduct
Rather than refuting the corruption allegations, Ortiz focuses solely on personal grievances against Rodriques. This is a common legal strategy used to deflect from institutional wrongdoing by making the dispute about individual discrimination rather than more significant systemic issues.
- Ortiz’s failure to deny or engage with the core allegations of NYPD favoritism and misconduct raises significant credibility issues. If these claims were false, she would have directly addressed them in her complaint.
- Her silence on these issues strongly suggests that Rodriques’ allegations are accurate and that her lawsuit is designed to suppress them.
4. Use of Litigation to Silence a Whistleblower
Ortiz’s lawsuit functions as a retaliatory Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)—a legal action intended to burden and intimidate an individual into silence. New York’s Anti-SLAPP law (CPLR 76-a) explicitly protects individuals like Rodriques, who make good-faith allegations of corruption and misconduct.
- New York courts have consistently dismissed retaliatory lawsuits targeting whistleblowers. See Guerrero v. Carva, 10 A.D.3d 105 (1st Dep’t 2004) (holding that SLAPP suits designed to stifle criticism on matters of public concern are subject to dismissal).
- Ortiz’s claims meet the definition of a retaliatory SLAPP suit. Rodriques has grounds to seek an early dismissal under CPLR 3211(g), which provides additional protections against lawsuits targeting public speech.
5. Strengthening Rodriques’ Retaliation and Whistleblower Claims
The fact that Ortiz’s lawsuit strategically ignores the public corruption allegations gives Rodriques even more substantial grounds to:
- File an amended EEOC complaint, explicitly citing Ortiz’s lawsuit as a retaliatory act.
- Invoke New York’s Anti-SLAPP protections to seek dismissal with sanctions.
- Bring a separate retaliation claim against Ortiz and the NYPD for filing this lawsuit in bad faith.
IX. Conclusion
Retaliatory lawsuits will not silence Lieutenant Rodriques. His EEOC Charge is filed in good faith, and Ortiz’s lawsuit is nothing more than a desperate act of intimidation.
Ortiz’s deliberate omission of the corruption and misconduct allegations exposes her lawsuit as a retaliatory distraction aimed at suppressing a legitimate whistleblower complaint. Rather than refuting these claims, she seeks to silence Rodriques through litigation, proving that her lawsuit is not about justice but retaliation. This failure to address the core allegations strengthens Rodriques’ legal defenses and his ability to seek dismissal, sanctions, and additional claims for retaliation.
Eric Sanders, Esq.
Attorney for Lieutenant Emelio C. Rodriques
The Sanders Firm, P.C.