For Immediate Release
New York, NY, September 16, 2024 – The charge filed by Lieutenant Joel Ramirez alleges that senior NYPD officials, including Chief of Detectives Joseph Kenny, protected white officers involved in serious misconduct while unfairly targeting Ramirez, a Hispanic officer, for challenging corruption. According to the allegations in the charge, Ramirez was retaliated against and subjected to discrimination after challenging the NYPD’s cover-up of misconduct at the 2022 Electric Zoo Festival, where officers under his supervision were implicated in stealing champagne and consuming alcohol. Ramirez contends that he also faced a questionable AWOL investigation regarding undercover officer UC 351, which he believes was an effort to discredit him for reporting the misconduct.
Ramirez, who has maintained an exemplary record throughout his career, was repeatedly passed over for promotion to Captain, which he asserts was direct retaliation for his refusal to remain silent about the misconduct and the subsequent cover-up. The charge claims that the NYPD’s actions reveal a pattern of selective enforcement, racial bias, and systemic retaliation against officers of color who challenge wrongdoing within the department. According to Ramirez, the NYPD leadership fosters a culture that punishes whistleblowers while protecting those with internal political connections, further exacerbating disparities within the force.
The EEOC Charge: Legal Basis
Ramirez’s EEOC charge includes allegations under several legal statutes, including:
- Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.
- The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law.
- New York State Executive Law § 296 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, national origin, and other protected classes.
- New York Labor Law § 215 protects employees from retaliation for reporting workplace misconduct.
- New York Labor Law § 740 provides whistleblower protection for employees reporting substantial public health or safety dangers.
- New York City Administrative Code § 8-107 prohibits discrimination and retaliation based on protected characteristics such as race and national origin.
The Electric Zoo Investigation and Cover-Up
The charge details a troubling series of events during the 2022 Electric Zoo Festival on Randall’s Island, highlighting what Ramirez claims to be internal NYPD misconduct, mishandling of evidence, and a concerted cover-up by senior officers. According to the charge, Ramirez, tasked with overseeing narcotics enforcement, was primarily supervising the Prisoner Van (P-Van) to prevent potential misconduct, a responsibility influenced by the infamous Chambers incident. Despite his diligent supervision, detectives and sergeants under his indirect supervision engaged in illegal activities that were later concealed by senior management.
Timeline of Events – Friday, September 2, 2022
At 12:30 p.m., Ramirez led a pre-tactical meeting with his Narcotics Borough Manhattan North (NBMN) teams in preparation for the undercover narcotics operations at the Electric Zoo Festival. His duties included managing two teams, each consisting of one sergeant and eight detectives, covering the 23rd and 32nd Precincts. Ramirez also took direct responsibility for supervising the P-Van, influenced by the 2017 Chambers incident, where two NYPD detectives were accused of raping a detainee. Ramirez’s commitment to preventing such misconduct guided his leadership decisions.
However, unbeknownst to him, detectives Jonathan Gonzalez, Warren Golden, and Wojciech Czech began consuming alcohol during the festival, an activity that Sergeants Robert Kelly and Sean Pittman, who were responsible for supervising the detectives, failed to stop.
The Events Leading to the Theft of Ace of Spades Champagne
The following day, Saturday, September 3, 2022, Ramirez began his tour at 1:00 p.m., focused on administrative duties, reviewing reports, and overseeing festival operations. At 2:30 p.m., Pittman informed Ramirez that detectives Gonzalez, Golden, and Czech would assist with law enforcement activities on Randall’s Island.
Later that evening, at around 7:15 p.m., security personnel at the VIP section of the festival detained detectives Gonzalez, Golden, and Czech for stealing two bottles of Ace of Spades champagne worth approximately $3,000. The bottles had been taken when the individuals who purchased them briefly left their table. Detective Gonzalez allegedly placed the bottles in a black backpack, intending to remove them from the VIP area. Detectives Golden and Czech were present but failed to intervene in the theft.
The incident was promptly reported to festival security, and the original champagne owners recovered the bottles from Gonzalez’s possession. At the time, Ramirez, who was handling other administrative supervisory duties, was unaware of the incident.
The Cover-Up by Senior Officers
Later that evening, Ramirez was informed of the theft and immediately reported the incident to his superiors, following department policy. However, senior officers intervened to shield the detectives involved instead of initiating a proper investigation. According to the charge, Deputy Inspector Christopher Henning and Inspector Peter Fiorillo, with the assistance of Deputy Inspector Daniel Campbell, played pivotal roles in covering up the misconduct. Campbell allegedly instructed the detectives to change out of their civilian clothes and leave the festival grounds before Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) investigators arrived.
Despite the serious nature of the theft and alcohol consumption, the detectives were not disciplined at the time. Although IAB was informed of the incident, the senior officers actively obstructed the investigation, protecting the detectives from immediate consequences. This action allowed them to avoid accountability.
The Cover-Up by Senior Officers
On Tuesday, September 6, 2022, Ramirez was summoned to Fiorillo’s office. Upon arriving, he found Fiorillo and Campbell on a conference call with Chief of Manhattan North Detectives Brian McGee. According to Ramirez’s allegations, he overheard McGee say, “Kenny [meaning Chief of Detectives Joseph Kenny] said, make sure Ramirez is the fall guy.” This statement, outlined in the EEOC charge, strongly suggests that NYPD leadership intended to scapegoat Ramirez for the misconduct while deflecting blame from the white detectives involved.
The Internal Affairs Investigation
Ramirez claims that the Internal Affairs Bureau’s investigation into the Electric Zoo Festival incident was riddled with inconsistencies and biased actions. According to the charge, the investigation against Ramirez was not supported by solid evidence but instead relied on conjecture.
Video footage and receipts clearly showed that detectives, including Gonzalez, Golden, and Czech, purchased and consumed alcohol during the event. This activity occurred in the presence of Sergeants Kelly, Pittman, and William Dooley but notably outside Ramirez’s supervision. The receipts and timeline established that no evidence suggested that Ramirez condoned or was even aware of their actions.
When Ramirez arrived at the scene later in the evening, detectives quickly removed the black bag containing the alcohol to hide it from him. Detective Czech, in particular, took steps to conceal the evidence. Despite these actions, Ramirez was charged with failing to supervise the officers and allegedly providing misleading statements about alcohol consumption. According to the EEOC charge, the evidence shows that Ramirez had no opportunity to witness the consumption of alcohol, as the detectives concealed the black bag immediately upon his arrival.
The investigation confirmed that Ramirez arrived at the scene around 7:34 p.m., by which time the alcohol had already been consumed. The detectives’ efforts to hide the evidence suggest that Ramirez did not know about their misconduct, making it unreasonable to hold him accountable for events before his arrival.
In addition, Ramirez was charged with making misleading statements regarding alcohol consumption. However, based on the receipts and video evidence, any statements Ramirez made denying knowledge of the alcohol were truthful. The detectives had hidden the alcohol before Ramirez had the chance to observe it, and his statements reflected his understanding of the situation. According to the EEOC charge, the Bureau’s conclusions were based more on assumptions than verifiable facts.
Furthermore, the investigation confirmed that Detective Gonzalez had stolen the two Ace of Spades champagne bottles. Charles Zhang, a witness at the festival, observed Gonzalez taking the bottles and later corroborated this in his testimony. Detective Czech assisted in moving the bottles, which were concealed in Gonzalez’s backpack. However, there was no evidence linking Ramirez to the theft, as it occurred outside his presence.
The AWOL Investigation Regarding UC 351
On September 20, 2022, Ramirez was informed of an investigation concerning the unauthorized absences of UC 351, an undercover officer whose leave had previously been approved by Inspector Fiorillo. UC 351 had been on authorized leave since July 8, 2022, yet Ramirez was falsely accused of failing to document the officer’s absences and supervise his return to duty. According to Ramirez’s charge, these accusations were part of a broader retaliation effort against him and UC 351.
Retaliatory Claims
Despite following department protocols for documenting UC 351’s five-week authorized leave, Ramirez was accused of failing to maintain accurate records. The EEOC charge alleges that the accusations were unfounded, as Inspector Fiorillo had approved the leave. Ramirez claims that this investigation was spearheaded by Deputy Inspector John Wilson and Chief Brian McGee, both of whom sought to discredit Ramirez’s leadership.
According to the charge, the AWOL investigation was retaliatory, launched after UC 351 reported the detectives’ misconduct at the Electric Zoo Festival to IAB. Ramirez contends that UC 351 learned of the misconduct through a WhatsApp group chat and sent an email detailing the events to IAB. The investigation into UC 351’s absences appeared to be part of an effort to undermine both UC 351 and Ramirez’s credibility.
On September 20, 2022, Ramirez was formally informed that the AWOL investigation had escalated, signaling that the accusations against him were being pursued despite his adherence to department policies.
Departmental Retaliation
Following the Electric Zoo incident, Ramirez faced swift retaliation from senior NYPD officers. He was reassigned from Module Lieutenant to Administrative Lieutenant, stripped of responsibilities, and barred from earning overtime. In stark contrast, detectives Gonzalez, Golden, Czech, and Detective Nicholas Katehis faced no significant consequences for their misconduct. According to the EEOC charge, Ramirez faced unfounded Charges and Specifications, accusing him of supervisory failures. This deflected blame from the true offenders, including Sergeants Kelly and Pittman, and senior officers like Campbell and Fiorillo.
Additionally, Wilson and McGee worked to isolate Ramirez within the department and damage his reputation while the detectives involved in the misconduct continued to serve without repercussions. The EEOC charge alleges that these actions were calculated to protect those with internal connections to NYPD leadership while punishing Ramirez for challenging corruption.
The Department Trial and Disciplinary Findings
The allegations against Ramirez, as outlined in the EEOC charge, were based on speculation rather than direct, substantiated evidence. No credible testimony or evidence demonstrated that Ramirez witnessed any of his subordinates consuming alcohol or displaying signs of intoxication. Testimonies from multiple individuals dismantled the department’s case, highlighting the reliance on assumptions rather than facts.
Inconsistent Application of Reasonableness
According to Ramirez’s EEOC charge, the Electric Zoo case is fundamentally inconsistent with the related AWOL case. In the AWOL case, Ramirez was found not guilty because he reasonably relied on department records, such as roll call sheets, to track personnel. The tribunal rightly concluded that Ramirez was entitled to rely on these official records and could not be held responsible for discrepancies beyond his control.
However, in the Electric Zoo case, Ramirez was not afforded the same reasonable reliance standard. The report claimed that Ramirez “should have known” his team members were consuming alcohol despite no direct evidence supporting this claim. Testimonies from Police Officer Victor Nunez and Detective Gary Perez confirmed that no alcohol was consumed in Ramirez’s presence, and no one informed him of the drinking.
According to the EEOC charge, this selective application of reasonableness shows that Ramirez was unfairly held to an unreasonable standard in the Electric Zoo case, reflecting bias in the department’s disciplinary process.
Testimonies that Disprove Assumptions of Guilt
- Lieutenant Shaun Tanner’s Testimony: Tanner’s statements emphasized the speculative nature of the charges. He provided no direct evidence that Ramirez was aware of alcohol consumption, relying instead on assumptions with no factual basis.
- Police Officer Victor Nunez’s Testimony: Nunez’s testimony was key in refuting the department’s claims. He stated that alcohol was never poured in Ramirez’s presence, and there were no visible signs of intoxication. This directly contradicts the assumption that Ramirez “should have known” about the alcohol.
- Detective Gary Perez’s Testimony: Perez admitted to drinking but confirmed that neither Ramirez nor any other supervisor was informed. His testimony highlights that the alcohol consumption was hidden from Ramirez, further invalidating the notion that Ramirez should have been aware.
- Sergeant Gairy James’s Testimony: James emphasized the importance of relying on observable facts—such as slurred speech or the smell of alcohol—to determine intoxication. No such signs were present, making the assumptions against Ramirez even more speculative.
Misapplication of the Derek Miller Precedent
The charges against Ramirez ignored the precedent set in Police Department City of New York v. Derek Miller, which established that intoxication cannot be presumed without clear, observable signs like slurred speech or the smell of alcohol. In Ramirez’s case, none of these indicators were present, yet the recommendation relied on the speculative assertion that he “should have known” about the alcohol consumption. This failure to apply the established legal standard from the Miller case is a critical misstep, further demonstrating the unjust nature of the disciplinary action against Ramirez.
Consistency with the 2019 Panel Report’s Concerns
The report’s flaws and recommendations against Ramirez mirror the concerns raised in the 2019 Panel Report on NYPD disciplinary practices. The Panel warned about the dangers of inconsistent standards, reliance on assumptions, and decisions not grounded in evidence. Ramirez’s case exemplifies these systemic issues.
The 2019 Panel Report criticized the NYPD for making decisions based on speculative reasoning rather than observable facts, and Ramirez’s case is a textbook example. The findings against him are based on the assumption that he “should have known” about the alcohol consumption, which is insufficient to justify disciplinary action. This selective application of standards highlights the need for reforms in the NYPD’s disciplinary processes to ensure fairness and transparency, as the 2019 Panel Report recommends.
Passed Over for Promotion to Captain in Retaliation
Despite Ramirez’s qualifications, including his score of 88.44 on the Promotion to Captain Examination and placement on the promotion list (List No. 56.5), he was passed over for promotion more than fifteen times following the Electric Zoo incident. The New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS) established a 244-name list for promotion to Captain on December 21, 2022, yet Ramirez was repeatedly denied promotion.
According to the EEOC charge, this failure to promote Ramirez was discriminatory and retaliatory, stemming from his challenge to senior management for covering up the misconduct at Electric Zoo. Ramirez contends that white officers, particularly those affiliated with the NYPD Gaelic Football Club, were protected while he faced systemic discrimination and retaliation.
About The Sanders Firm, P.C.
Lieutenant Joel Ramirez is represented by The Sanders Firm, P.C., a leading civil rights law firm based in New York City. Led by Eric Sanders, the firm is committed to fighting for victims of discrimination, retaliation, and civil rights violations. The Sanders Firm is dedicated to holding the NYPD accountable and seeking justice for Ramirez.
For media inquiries, contact: Eric Sanders, Esq. The Sanders Firm, P.C. Phone: (212) 652-2782
