Michael Birch v. City of New York, Et Al.

Case 1:16-cv-00034 Document 1 Filed 01/05/16 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRCT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------------x
MICHAEL BIRCH
Complaint
Plaintiff,
Jury Trial Demand
-againstTHE CITY OF NEW YORK; RAYMOND W. KELLY, as
Former Police Commissioner; WILLIAM J. BRATTON, as
Police Commissioner; JOSEPH FOX, as Chief of the Transit
Bureau and CONSTANTIN G. TSACHAS, as Former
Commanding Officer, NYPD Transit District No.: 34, each
being sued individually and in their official capacities as
employees of defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK
Defendants
----------------------------------------------------------------------x
The plaintiff MICHAEL BIRCH by his attorney The Sanders Firm, P.C., as and for his
complaint against defendants THE CITY OF NEW YORK; RAYMOND W. KELLY; WILLIAM
J. BRATTON; JOSEPH FOX and CONSTANTIN G. TSACHAS, respectfully set forth and allege
that:
INTRODUCTION
1.
This is a civil rights action filed against defendants THE CITY OF NEW YORK;
RAYMOND W. KELLY; WILLIAM J. BRATTON; JOSEPH FOX and CONSTANTIN G.

TSACHAS to vindicate the right of police officers within the Police Department City of New
York (NYPD) to openly complain about the illegal use of quota systems guised as
performance goals designed to artificially drive arrest, summons and other enforcement
activities to the detriment of citizens of color without fear of unlawful retaliation.
2.
Plaintiff is a 16-year veteran police officer with an exemplary record who is being
subjected to a campaign of unlawful retaliation and harassment for complaining about the highly
developed illegal performance goals implemented within Transit District No.: 34.
3.
Plaintiff alleges these illegal performance goals although consistently denied
by defendants THE CITY OF NEW YORK; RAYMOND W. KELLY; WILLIAM J. BRATTON;

JOSEPH FOX; CONSTANTIN G. TSACHAS and their agents is a highly developed system
designed to generate revenue and pecuniary gains to the detriment of citizens of color.
4.
Plaintiff alleges since 2011, defendants THE CITY OF NEW YORK;
RAYMOND W. KELLY; JOSEPH FOX; CONSTANTIN G. TSACHAS and their agents within
Transit District No.: 34, have developed and implemented a system of illegal performance goals
mandating increasing numbers of arrests, summonses and stop-and-frisks to the detriment of
citizens of color.
5.
Plaintiff alleges defendants THE CITY OF NEW YORK; RAYMOND W.
KELLY; JOSEPH FOX and CONSTANTIN G. TSACHAS and their agents within Transit
District No.: 34, developed a detailed monitoring system including computer databases used to
track, analyze and categorize police officers to ensure their compliance with the illegal
performance goals.
6.
Plaintiff alleges police officers within Transit District No.: 34, were constantly
pressured to meet the illegal performance goals and those who failed to meet the quotas
were subjected to punishment including undesirable assignments, the loss of overtime, denial of
leave, separation from partners, poor evaluations, etc.
7.
Plaintiff alleges concerned about the impact of illegal performance goals
within Transit District No.: 34 upon the civil rights of citizens of color, on several occasions
complained to defendant CONSTANTIN G. TSACHAS and other supervisors within the
NYPD.
8.
Plaintiff alleges in response, he has and continues to be retaliated against.
9.
Plaintiff alleges other police officers have also been retaliated against. In
particular, police officers of color.

10.
Plaintiff alleges these illegal performance goals within Transit District No.: 34,
have pitted police officers against each other, straining professional relationships and diverting
resources away from important law enforcement activities.
11.
Plaintiff alleges the use of these illegal performance goals within Transit District
No.: 34 is a microcosm of a larger public safety crisis regarding NYPD law enforcement
activities.
12.
Plaintiff alleges for many several years, the NYPD has and continues to be
besieged with complaints about its illegal use of performance goals leading to innocent
citizens of color being stopped, frisked, issued legally baseless summonses, and even falsely
arrested.
13.
Plaintiff alleges through personal tape recordings, officer and citizen complaints,
admissions, and newspaper reports, these illegal performance goals have been uncovered
across the city.
14.
Plaintiff alleges despite the aforementioned, these illegal performance goals
continue to be implemented throughout the NYPD to the detriment of innocent citizens of color.
15.
KELLY; WILLIAM J. BRATTON; JOSEPH FOX; CONSTANTIN G. TSACHAS and their

agents have violated his civil rights under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. 1983; First
Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, 8 of the New York State
Constitution.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

16.
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1965, 28 U.S.C.
1331, 1343 and 2202 to secure protection of and to redress deprivation of rights secured by:
a.
the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. 1983, providing for the protection
of all persons in his civil rights and the redress of deprivation of rights under
color of law;
b.
the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, guarantees freedoms

concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition; and
c.
Article I, 8 of the New York State Constitution, which guarantees every

citizen may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all
subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be
passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.
17.
The unlawful employment practices, violations of plaintiffs civil rights complained
of herein were committed within the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York.
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
18.
Plaintiff has filed suit with this Court within the applicable statute of limitations
19.
Plaintiff is not required to exhaust any administrative procedures prior to suit under
period.
the Civil Rights Act of 1871.

PLAINTIFF
20.
Plaintiff MICHAEL BIRCH is a male citizen of the United States of America, over
twenty-one (21) years of age, resident of Richmond County and is an employee of defendant THE
CITY OF NEW YORK (hereinafter referred to as the CITY) more specifically the Police
Department City of New York (hereinafter referred to as the NYPD). For the purposes of this
litigation, Defendant CITY may be identified interchangeably using CITY or NYPD to identify the
employer which is the CITY.
DEFENDANTS
21.
Defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK was and is a municipal corporation
organized and existing under and by virtue of the law of the State of New York, and at all relevant
times Plaintiffs employer, with its central offices in the county of New York, and diverse other
offices and facilities throughout the world.
22.
Defendants RAYMOND W. KELLY (Caucasian Male), as Former Police
Commissioner; WILLIAM J. BRATTON (Caucasian Male), as Police Commissioner;

JOSEPH FOX (Caucasian Male), as Chief of the Transit Bureau and CONSTANTIN G.
TSACHAS (Caucasian Male), as Former Commanding Officer, Transit District No.: 34.
BACKGROUND
23.
Plaintiff self identifies as a White Hispanic male employee of the NYPD.
28.
Plaintiff alleges according to NYPD data, since 2002, more than five (5) million
citizens were stop, questioned and frisked.

29.
Plaintiff alleges the overwhelming majority, close to ninety (90) percent of the
citizens forcibly stopped were released having committed no chargeable felony or misdemeanor
offense under the New York State Penal Law.
30.
Plaintiff alleges the overwhelming majority stopped were citizens of color.
31.
Plaintiff alleges other than some anecdotal studies and analysis performed by the
New York Daily News and other media companies, there have never been any comprehensive
longitudinal studies regarding whether the NYPD policing and enforcement practices have a
detrimental effect upon citizens of color.
32.
Plaintiff alleges in May 2010, The Village Voice published a series of articles
focusing on the illegal quota system implemented within the 81st Precinct.
33.
Plaintiff alleges in August 2010, Former Governor David Paterson signed
amended legislation broadening the scope of New York State Labor Law 215-a, enacted to
protect against retaliation for not meeting illegal quotas for summonses, arrests, and stop-andfrisk activities.
34.
Plaintiff alleges prior to the amendment, New York State Labor Law 215-a,
only covered traffic violations.

35.
Plaintiff alleges in November 2010, the NYPD through its Legal Bureau issued
guidance to employees of the NYPD, which in essence flaunts the broad reach and protections
of New York State Labor Law 215-a, by claiming supervisors can set performance goals.
36.
Plaintiff alleges performance goals are just illegal quotas cloaked in different
language.
37.

agents continue to enforce illegal performance goals to this day despite its detrimental impact
upon citizens of color.
38.
Plaintiff alleges in August 2011 a federal judge in the Southern District of New
York, in Floyd v. City of New York 959 F. Supp 540, denying the NYPD's motion for summary
judgment in a class-action challenge to the stop-and-frisk program, described the recordings from
the 81st Precinct as smoking gun evidence of the existence of illegal quotas.
39.
Plaintiff alleges despite the public controversy about the NYPD illegal
performance goals defendants THE CITY OF NEW YORK; RAYMOND W. KELLY;

WILLIAM J. BRATTON; JOSEPH FOX; CONSTANTIN G. TSACHAS refuse to admit illegal
performance goals exist and continues to implement them as throughout every precinct, transit
district and police service area across the city.
40.
Plaintiff alleges as a result, police officers face intense pressure to comply with
unlawful orders to meet these illegal performance goals.

41.
Plaintiff alleges until he challenged the illegal performance goals implemented
within Transit District No.: 34, he consistently received positive annual reviews.
42.
Plaintiff alleges in December 2011 defendant CONSTANTIN G. TSACHAS
through his supervisors within Transit District No.: 34 started to pressure police officers to meet
illegal numerical performance goals for arrests, summonses, stop-and-frisks.
43.
Plaintiff alleges defendant CONSTANTIN G. TSACHAS through his supervisors
within Transit District No.: 34 refined illegal performance goals implementing systems where
police officers were credited for issuing good summonses meaning Transit Adjudication
Bureau (TAB) summonses particularly fare evasion because a person could pop meaning
having a warrant therefore, the police officer can justify arresting the individual.
44.
Plaintiff alleges police officers were discredited for issuing bad summonses
such as littering because it would not result in an arrest.

45.
Plaintiff alleges the aforementioned activities were enforced according to the race
of the citizen.
46.
Plaintiff alleges police officers who did not meet the illegal performance goals
were subjected to a wide range of punishment, including undesirable assignments, loss of

overtime, and denial of requested days off.
47.
Plaintiff alleges assignments to the R and F train lines are considered undesirable
assignments because Caucasian police officers and supervisors call them ghetto meaning transit
lines primarily utilized by citizens of color.
48.
Plaintiff alleges he recognized such illegal performance goals violates the
NYPD's core mission and his own commitment as a police officer to protect and serve the public
at large irrespective of race.
49.
Plaintiff alleges he was unwilling to participate in such illegal practices that
damages communities he was entrusted to protect.

50.
Plaintiff alleges in December 2011 Sergeant Richard Healy (Caucasian Male)
told him defendant CONSTANTIN G. TSACHAS wanted he and Lieutenant Paul Ng (Asian
Male) to negatively rate him on his upcoming Yearly Performance Evaluation due to his lack of
arrest and summons activities.
51.
Plaintiff alleges Sergeant Healy told him he should increase his arrest and
summons activities before the end of December to avoid the negative Yearly Performance
Evaluation.
52.
Plaintiff alleges Sergeant Healy told him defendant CONSTANTIN G.
TSACHAS wanted ten (10) TAB summons and one (1) arrest a month.
53.
Plaintiff alleges he told Sergeant Healy he was doing his job addressing the
conditions and not trying to reach specific numbers.

54.
Plaintiff alleges he told Sergeant Healy, those numbers sound like quotas.
55.
Plaintiff alleges Sergeant Healy told him, were not enforcing a quota, we just
want to make sure you are on par with everyone else on the platoon.
56.
Plaintiff alleges he told Sergeant Healy that sounds like a quota to me.
57.
Plaintiff alleges Sergeant Healy told him, Im just trying to look out for you. You
can do what you want with the information.

58.
Plaintiff alleges after complaining to Sergeant Healy, and failing to meet the
illegal performance goals as determined by defendant CONSTANTIN G. TSACHAS, he was

placed on Level One (1) Performance Monitoring.
59.
Plaintiff alleges Lieutenant Ng and Sergeant Healy told him defendant
CONSTANTIN G. TSACHAS placed into the Performance Monitoring Program due to his lack
of activity.
60.
Plaintiff alleges the Performance Monitoring Program managed by the NYPD
Employee Management Division is used to unfairly punish police officers who refuse to meet the
illegal performance goals imposed upon them.
61.
Plaintiff alleges the majority of employees placed into the Performance
Monitoring Program are overwhelming police officers of color despite their numbers in the
Department.
62.
Plaintiff alleges from January 2012 through May 2012, defendant CONSTANTIN
G. TSACHAS ensured no Yearly Performance Evaluations would be prepared within Transit

District No.: 34.
63.
Plaintiff alleges during the interim period of time, defendant CONSTANTIN G.
TSACHAS ensured every police officer who resisted illegal performance goals were placed
into the Performance Monitoring Program or their Yearly Performance Evaluations lowered.
64.
Plaintiff alleges since December 2011, he began recording his interactions with
defendant CONSTANTIN G. TSACHAS and other supervisors because he knew based upon
past experiences, the Department always denies illegal performance goals exist.
65.
Plaintiff alleges in May 2012, he met with defendant CONSTANTIN G.
TSACHAS, Lieutenant NG and Sergeant Healy inside of the Conference Room, Transit District
No.: 34. He was told by defendant CONSTANTIN G. TSACHAS he was being rated a 2.5 on his
Yearly Performance Evaluation due to his lack of activity.
66.
Plaintiff alleges defendant CONSTANTIN G. TSACHAS told him that hes not
working hard enough for him focusing solely on illegal performance goals.
67.
Plaintiff alleges defendant CONSTANTIN G. TSACHAS told him due to his
low activity he is going to prepare an Interim Performance Evaluation.

68.
Plaintiff refused to sign the Yearly Performance Evaluation.
69.
Plaintiff alleges defendant CONSTANTIN G. TSACHAS unfairly used the
Performance Monitoring Program to punish him and other police officers who refuse to meet the
illegal performance goals imposed upon them.
70.
Plaintiff alleges from May 22, 2012 through August 12, 2012 for failing to meet
the illegal performance goals he was subjected to a wide range of punishment, including
undesirable assignments, loss of overtime, and denial of requested days off.
71.
Plaintiff alleges August 12, 2012 Lieutenant King requested to meet with him
inside of his office. Once inside, Lieutenant King showed him the Interim Performance
Evaluation approved by defendant CONSTANTIN G. TSACHAS rating him a 2.0 due to his
lack of activity.
10
72.
Plaintiff refused to sign the Interim Performance Evaluation and requested a
meeting with defendant CONSTANTIN G. TSACHAS.

73.
Plaintiff alleges on August 24, 2012 he met with defendant CONSTANTIN G.
TSACHAS, Lieutenant Frank Monti and Sergeant Mai inside of the Conference Room, Transit
District No.: 34. He was told by defendant CONSTANTIN G. TSACHAS he was being rated a
2.0 on his Interim Performance Evaluation due to his lack of activity.
74.
Plaintiff alleges during the meeting while reading some computer data, defendant
CONSTANTIN G. TSACHAS suggested he was not stopping enough Male Blacks and
Hispanics.
75.
Plaintiff alleges he told defendant CONSTANTIN G. TSACHAS he doesnt
target people.
76.
Plaintiff alleges defendant CONSTANTIN G. TSACHAS seemed incredulous
that he stopped more females than males as if somehow, females dont violate the law.
77.
Plaintiff alleges he told defendant CONSTANTIN G. TSACHAS hes not going
to hide and play those sort of games.

78.
Plaintiff alleges he told defendant CONSTANTIN G. TSACHAS if he fills out a
UF 250 they deserve to be stopped.

79.
Plaintiff alleges from August 24, 2012 through September 26, 2012 for failing to
meet illegal performance goals he was subjected to a wide range of punishment, including
undesirable assignments, loss of overtime, and denial of requested days off.
80.
Plaintiff alleges on September 26, 2012 he was placed on Modified Assignment
under the authority of defendant JOSEPH FOX after he was accused of giving false and
misleading statements about entries made in a notebook placed inside of the Omega Booth.
11
81.
Plaintiff alleges he did not place the notebook inside of the Omega Booth.
82.
Plaintiff alleges he did write entries in the notebook complaining about illegal
performance goals implemented within Transit District No.: 34.

83.
Plaintiff alleges shortly thereafter, he was transferred to Housing Police Service
Area No.: 2, VIPER No.: 2.

84.
Plaintiff alleges on October 15, 2012 he was ordered to report to the Employee
Management Division.
85.
Plaintiff alleges he was notified he was placed on Level Two (2) Performance
Monitoring based upon the recommendation of defendant CONSTANTIN G. TSACHAS.

86.
Plaintiff alleges he told the Employee Management Division supervisor he was
being unfairly rated by defendant CONSTANTIN G. TSACHAS and other supervisors.

87.
Plaintiff alleges the Employee Management Division supervisor didnt report his
complaints about being retaliated against to the Internal Affairs Bureau in accordance with NYPD
Patrol Guide No.: 205-38.
88.
Plaintiff alleges from Late September 2012 through February 2014, he
miraculously had no performance problems.

89.
Plaintiff alleges in February 2014, he was ordered to report to the Employee
Management Division where he was subsequently restored to Full Duty status.

90.
Plaintiff alleges shortly thereafter, he was administratively transferred to the 69th
precinct.
91.
Plaintiff alleges upon arrival, he met with the Commanding Officer and requested
additional training due to the change of assignment from patrolling throughout the New York City
Transit Authority Transportation System to street patrol which is diametrically different.
12
92.
Plaintiff alleges he never received any additional training.
93.
Plaintiff alleges on February 24, 2014, he received formal Charges and
Specifications regarding the notebook incident inside of the Transit District No.: 34 Omega
Booth.
94.
Plaintiff alleges out of more than thirty (30) police officers interviewed about the
notebook incident, he is one of the few officers to receive Charges and Specifications.
95.
Plaintiff alleges in January 2015 he was administratively transferred to the 79th
Precinct.
96.
Plaintiff alleges since January 2015 he miraculously had no performance
problems.
97.
Plaintiff alleges on September 16, 2015 he received formal Charges and
Specifications regarding mishandling a domestic violence assignment.

98.

agents unfairly retaliated against him and violated his civil rights under the Civil Rights Act of
1871, 42 U.S.C. 1983; First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, 8 of
the New York State Constitution.
VIOLATIONS AND CLAIMS ALLEGED
COUNT I
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
IN VIOLATION OF
THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
98.
Plaintiff re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 98 and incorporates them by reference as
Paragraphs 1 through 98 of Count I of this Complaint.

99.
Plaintiff defendants THE CITY OF NEW YORK; RAYMOND W. KELLY;
13
WILLIAM J. BRATTON; JOSEPH FOX; CONSTANTIN G. TSACHAS and their agents

interfered with his right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
100.
Plaintiff alleges he engaged in constitutionally protected speech and expression.
101.
Plaintiff alleges he suffered retaliatory actions by defendants THE CITY OF
NEW YORK; RAYMOND W. KELLY; WILLIAM J. BRATTON; JOSEPH FOX;

CONSTANTIN G. TSACHAS and their agents.
102.
Plaintiff alleges the protected speech was a motivating factor in the retaliatory
actions.
103.

agents actions caused him mental anguish, damage to his personal and professional reputation,
and loss of employment opportunities.
COUNT II
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
IN VIOLATION OF
THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION
104.
Plaintiff re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 103 and incorporates them by reference
as Paragraphs 1 through 103 of Count II of this Complaint.

105.

agents interfered with his right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
106.
Plaintiff alleges he engaged in constitutionally protected speech and expression.
107.
Plaintiff alleges he suffered retaliatory actions by defendants THE CITY OF
NEW YORK; RAYMOND W. KELLY; WILLIAM J. BRATTON; JOSEPH FOX;

CONSTANTIN G. TSACHAS and their agents.
14
108.
Plaintiff alleges the protected speech was a motivating factor in the retaliatory
actions.
109.

agents actions caused him mental anguish, damage to his personal and professional reputation,
loss of employment opportunities.
JURY TRIAL
110.
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of all issues in this action that are so triable.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, plaintiff demands compensatory and punitive damages from
defendants THE CITY OF NEW YORK; RAYMOND W. KELLY; WILLIAM J. BRATTON;

JOSEPH FOX; CONSTANTIN G. TSACHAS and their agents in an amount to be determined at
trial, plus any and all available statutory remedies, both legal and equitable, and interests and
costs.
Dated: January 5, 2016
New York, NY
Respectfully submitted,
By:
__________s_______________
Eric Sanders
Eric Sanders, Esq.

THE SANDERS FIRM, P.C.
230 Park Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, NY 10169
(212) 808-6515 (Business Telephone)
(212) 729-3062 (Facsimile)
Website: http://www.thesandersfirmpc.com
15

Michael Birch v. City of New York, Et Al.

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Michael Birch v. City of New York, Et Al.

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Case 1:16-cv-00034 Document 1 Filed 01/05/16 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

RAYMOND W. KELLY; WILLIAM J. BRATTON; JOSEPH FOX and CONSTANTIN G.

Case 1:16-cv-00034 Document 1 Filed 01/05/16 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 2

Plaintiff alleges these illegal performance goals although consistently denied

by defendants THE CITY OF NEW YORK; RAYMOND W. KELLY; WILLIAM J. BRATTON;

Plaintiff alleges since 2011, defendants THE CITY OF NEW YORK;

Plaintiff alleges defendants THE CITY OF NEW YORK; RAYMOND W.

Plaintiff alleges concerned about the impact of illegal performance goals

Case 1:16-cv-00034 Document 1 Filed 01/05/16 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 3

Plaintiff alleges in response, he has and continues to be retaliated against.

particular, police officers of color.

Plaintiff alleges despite the aforementioned, these illegal performance goals

Plaintiff alleges defendants THE CITY OF NEW YORK; RAYMOND W.

KELLY; WILLIAM J. BRATTON; JOSEPH FOX; CONSTANTIN G. TSACHAS and their

Case 1:16-cv-00034 Document 1 Filed 01/05/16 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 4

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1965, 28 U.S.C.

the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, guarantees freedoms

Article I, 8 of the New York State Constitution, which guarantees every

The unlawful employment practices, violations of plaintiffs civil rights complained

the Civil Rights Act of 1871.

Case 1:16-cv-00034 Document 1 Filed 01/05/16 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 5

Defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK was and is a municipal corporation

Defendants RAYMOND W. KELLY (Caucasian Male), as Former Police

Commissioner; WILLIAM J. BRATTON (Caucasian Male), as Police Commissioner;

Plaintiff self identifies as a White Hispanic male employee of the NYPD.

citizens were stop, questioned and frisked.

Plaintiff alleges the overwhelming majority stopped were citizens of color.

Case 1:16-cv-00034 Document 1 Filed 01/05/16 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 6

Plaintiff alleges in August 2010, Former Governor David Paterson signed

only covered traffic violations.

Plaintiff alleges defendants THE CITY OF NEW YORK; RAYMOND W.

KELLY; WILLIAM J. BRATTON; JOSEPH FOX; CONSTANTIN G. TSACHAS and their

Case 1:16-cv-00034 Document 1 Filed 01/05/16 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 7

performance goals defendants THE CITY OF NEW YORK; RAYMOND W. KELLY;

unlawful orders to meet these illegal performance goals.

Plaintiff alleges until he challenged the illegal performance goals implemented

Plaintiff alleges in December 2011 defendant CONSTANTIN G. TSACHAS

Plaintiff alleges defendant CONSTANTIN G. TSACHAS through his supervisors

such as littering because it would not result in an arrest.

Case 1:16-cv-00034 Document 1 Filed 01/05/16 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 8

were subjected to a wide range of punishment, including undesirable assignments, loss of

Plaintiff alleges he recognized such illegal performance goals violates the

Plaintiff alleges he was unwilling to participate in such illegal practices that

damages communities he was entrusted to protect.

Plaintiff alleges in December 2011 Sergeant Richard Healy (Caucasian Male)

Plaintiff alleges Sergeant Healy told him defendant CONSTANTIN G.

conditions and not trying to reach specific numbers.

Case 1:16-cv-00034 Document 1 Filed 01/05/16 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 9

can do what you want with the information.

illegal performance goals as determined by defendant CONSTANTIN G. TSACHAS, he was

Plaintiff alleges Lieutenant Ng and Sergeant Healy told him defendant

Plaintiff alleges the Performance Monitoring Program managed by the NYPD

Plaintiff alleges the majority of employees placed into the Performance

G. TSACHAS ensured no Yearly Performance Evaluations would be prepared within Transit

Plaintiff alleges during the interim period of time, defendant CONSTANTIN G.

Case 1:16-cv-00034 Document 1 Filed 01/05/16 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 10

Plaintiff alleges in May 2012, he met with defendant CONSTANTIN G.

Plaintiff alleges defendant CONSTANTIN G. TSACHAS told him due to his

low activity he is going to prepare an Interim Performance Evaluation.

Plaintiff refused to sign the Yearly Performance Evaluation.

Plaintiff alleges defendant CONSTANTIN G. TSACHAS unfairly used the