FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Legal Complaint Exposes Systemic Bias in the NYPD’s Internal Discipline Process and Unlawful Retaliation Against Officers Who Challenge Its Legitimacy
New York, NY – March 6, 2025, Former New York City Police Department (NYPD) Officer Nicholas Hernandez has filed a federal lawsuit against the City of New York, Police Commissioner Jessica S. Tisch, Former Commissioner Edward A. Caban, and Former Deputy Commissioner Amy J. Litwin, alleging that he was forced out of the department through a deliberate pattern of retaliation, selective enforcement, and gender-based discrimination in the disciplinary process.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, claims that Hernandez was deprived of his constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, subjected to retaliation for challenging the disciplinary process, and pressured into filing for early retirement under the direct threat of termination from Commissioner Tisch.
At the heart of the legal complaint is the allegation that the NYPD’s disciplinary process is inherently arbitrary, disproportionately targeting male officers—particularly those accused of domestic-related incidents—while affording leniency to officers with political connections or those who fit a different demographic profile. The lawsuit alleges that Hernandez was subjected to selective enforcement, where NYPD leadership, including Commissioner Tisch, departed from standard disciplinary practices to force his resignation.
Furthermore, Hernandez claims that his case is part of a broader trend in which officers accused of wrongdoing are systematically denied procedural safeguards, such as the right to present legal defenses and confront their accusers, leading to unfair and predetermined outcomes.
A Disciplinary System Plagued by Political Interference and Bias
Hernandez’s lawsuit underscores broader and longstanding concerns regarding the NYPD’s internal disciplinary system, which has frequently been criticized for its alleged favoritism, political influence, and inconsistent enforcement of disciplinary standards. The allegations raised in Hernandez’s complaint are consistent with findings from an independent panel report commissioned in 2019 by then-NYPD Commissioner James O’Neill. The report exposed troubling disparities within the department’s disciplinary system. The panel of legal and law enforcement experts found that the NYPD’s approach to discipline was often inconsistent, with officers receiving vastly different penalties for similar infractions based on factors that had nothing to do with the severity of their misconduct.
The report highlighted how political affiliations and personal relationships with high-ranking NYPD officials frequently played a decisive role in determining an officer’s fate when facing disciplinary action. Officers who were well-connected or had the favor of department leadership often saw their cases quietly dismissed or faced minimal consequences. In contrast, officers without political backing—or those who had fallen out of favor with NYPD leadership—were subjected to severe penalties, often disproportionately so, without a clear justification for the discrepancy. This system, the report suggested, not only compromised the integrity of NYPD’s disciplinary process but also raised serious concerns about transparency, fairness, and the equitable application of justice within the department.
Hernandez’s lawsuit alleges that he became a direct victim of this flawed system, one that allowed selective enforcement to dictate the outcomes of disciplinary proceedings. According to the complaint, Hernandez was assured that a disciplinary matter related to a minor administrative violation had been resolved. However, in a move that he claims was motivated by retaliation and bias, NYPD leadership—under the direction of Commissioner Jessica Tisch—suddenly reopened the case against him, using it to inflict further punishment and ultimately force him out of the department.
The complaint contends there was no legitimate reason to revisit the matter, especially since Hernandez had already faced penalties for the original incident. Instead, the lawsuit alleges that reopening the case was a clear example of selective enforcement, demonstrating how factors beyond the case’s merits often drive NYPD’s disciplinary decisions.
Further compounding the unfairness, the complaint alleges that while Hernandez was subjected to escalating disciplinary measures, other officers—particularly female officers accused of similar or even more serious infractions—were either never investigated, received minimal punishment, or were otherwise shielded from the kind of scrutiny he faced. Hernandez asserts that this pattern of disparate treatment is not incidental but reflects a more profound, systemic issue within the NYPD, where male officers—especially those involved in domestic incidents—are disproportionately targeted. In contrast, female officers benefit from institutional leniency.
The lawsuit alleges that this gender-based disparity in disciplinary actions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and federal, state, and city laws prohibiting employment discrimination. By holding male officers to a different disciplinary standard than their female counterparts, Hernandez contends that the NYPD has reinforced outdated and biased assumptions—notably the presumption that male officers are more likely to be the aggressors in domestic disputes while affording women the benefit of the doubt, regardless of the facts in individual cases.
Department Trial: A Flawed and Biased Process
Hernandez’s lawsuit highlights fundamental flaws in the NYPD’s trial system. It alleges that officers accused of misconduct are systematically denied due process. He contends that NYPD disciplinary tribunals regularly dismiss key legal defenses, rely on hearsay, and prioritize punitive outcomes over fairness.
During his department trial, Hernandez was prohibited from asserting crucial legal defenses, including justifications under New York State Penal Law for self-defense and defense of premises. His complaint further alleges that hearsay testimony was improperly given substantial weight while exculpatory evidence was disregarded or minimized.
The NYPD’s internal disciplinary process has long been criticized for its lack of transparency, disregard for procedural fairness, and susceptibility to outside influence. Hernandez alleges that his case demonstrates how officers who attempt to assert legal protections or challenge the department’s handling of their cases are systematically denied the ability to do so. He contends this biased approach led to a predetermined guilty finding and disproportionately severe penalties.
Retaliation and the Reopening of a Previously Closed Disciplinary Matter
After fully serving the disciplinary penalties previously imposed upon him, Hernandez was assured that no further action would be taken against him. However, his lawsuit describes a shocking reversal he claims was unjust and a clear act of retaliation orchestrated by NYPD leadership under Commissioner Jessica Tisch. In early 2025, the department unexpectedly reopened a previously resolved matter against him, which Hernandez alleges was intended to create additional grounds for his removal from the force.
According to the complaint, the issue stemmed from a TikTok video on January 25, 2024, depicting Hernandez’s vehicle with a license plate covering. At the time, Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) Group No. 31 reviewed the footage and conducted an internal inquiry. Shortly thereafter, a memorandum (UF49) was issued by IAB, notifying Hernandez’s precinct commander about the alleged violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL) § 402.1(b). Despite this notification, no disciplinary action was deemed necessary, and Hernandez continued his service in good standing.
For months, Hernandez believed the matter had been resolved. His chain of command or IAB did not indicate any further proceedings were anticipated. Yet, in April 2024—long after the alleged violation and with no intervening infractions—Hernandez was unexpectedly summoned to a department interview regarding the very same license plate issue.
The lawsuit alleges that this sudden reversal was not a coincidence but a deliberate act of retaliation. Hernandez contends that the NYPD leadership, specifically Commissioner Tisch, utilized this minor, previously dismissed administrative matter as a pretext to intensify disciplinary proceedings against him. By dragging him back into the department’s disciplinary system without any new evidence or justification, the department allegedly sought to create the illusion of persistent misconduct. This illusion could then be used to justify his eventual termination.
Gender Discrimination and Disparate Treatment in Disciplinary Matters
Hernandez’s lawsuit claims that the NYPD systematically discriminates against male officers in disciplinary matters, particularly in cases involving domestic incidents. He alleges that male officers are presumed to be the aggressors in such cases and are disproportionately subjected to harsh penalties, while female officers accused of similar misconduct routinely receive leniency.
The complaint highlights multiple instances where female officers facing domestic violence allegations or other infractions received minimal penalties—or no discipline at all—while male officers, including Hernandez, were subjected to extreme punishments, including termination. The lawsuit contends that these double standards violate federal and state anti-discrimination laws.
Hernandez claims that NYPD leadership, including Commissioner Tisch, enforces disciplinary policies in a gender-biased manner, reinforcing outdated stereotypes that assume male officers are inherently more culpable in domestic disputes while affording female officers more leniency. This pattern of discrimination, the lawsuit claims, has been observed in multiple NYPD disciplinary decisions over the years.
Eric Sanders, Esq., of The Sanders Firm, P.C., stated:
“This lawsuit exposes the NYPD’s deeply flawed disciplinary system, which punishes officers not based on fairness or facts but on selective enforcement, political favoritism, and gender bias. Nicholas Hernandez was assured that his disciplinary matters had been resolved, yet the department arbitrarily reopened a closed case against him—months after the fact—in what appears to be a calculated effort to force him out. This was not about accountability; this was about retaliation.
The NYPD has a well-documented history of applying its disciplinary policies inconsistently, disproportionately targeting male officers while affording leniency to female officers accused of similar or even more severe misconduct. Hernandez’s claims are not just about one officer—they reflect a broader pattern of discriminatory enforcement that violates both state and federal laws. His case challenges the NYPD’s unchecked ability to manipulate its internal processes to punish those without political protection, and it demands accountability for a system that continues to operate without transparency or fairness.”
Contact Information:
The Sanders Firm, P.C.
30 Wall Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Phone: 212-652-2782
###