Hispanic officers allege mistreatment in Miami Gardens, call for chief's removal
The Miami Gardens officers — who said they were suspended or demoted after filing complaints of unfair treatment with the city — have also demanded the termination of Police Chief Delma Noel-Pratt, named the city's first female Black chief in the largest Black majority city in Florida in 2017.
'The current police chief is out of control in terms of the mistreatment and abuse of officers, in particular Hispanic officers and officers who complain about wrongdoing,' Attorney Michael Pizzi said from a conference room at his Miami Lakes law office Wednesday, four of the five officers at his side.
Miami Gardens police officers Juan Gonzalez, Christian Vega, Francisco Mejido, Rudy Hernandez and Sgt. Pedro Valdes all said they were retaliated against by command staff after questioning promotions, discipline and how rules are enforced internally.
Federal complaint filed
The officers have already filed a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations and U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Under federal law, the EEOC has up to 180 days to conduct an investigation into claims of discrimination or it must issue a notice of right to sue, allowing the officers to seek damages through a lawsuit. A whistleblower lawsuit can be filed in 30 days after giving the city notice.
Sgt. Valdes claims he was relieved of duty for six months, forced to sit home 10 hours a day with pay — without any type of explanation.
'I was told, go home. No cause,' Valdes said. 'It's demoralizing because I have family members, including my wife, who's a police officer there. To play with our emotions and mental state for no reason — it's not right.'
Miami Gardens Police executive officer Emmanuel Jeanty wouldn't go into detail about the reasons Valdes was relieved of duty, but said it was 'false' that the officer wasn't given a reason.
'He was informed and signed paperwork,' Jeanty said.
The city did not comment on the officers' accusations when asked Wednesday. The police department, however, stood behind its decisions involving them.
'As the chief of police, I have every right to make the transfers or demotions that I see fit,' Noel-Pratt said.
Miami Gardens, with a population of 110,000, is 71% Black and 26% Hispanic, according to the city's website. The police department's officers, in comparison, are 48% Black and 36% Hispanic as of 2024, according to data from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
Claims of demotions, harassment, abuse
The officers claimed the targeted harassment campaign by the department left them with severe mental and emotional stress, even PTSD. Pizzi noted that some of the officers who served in the U.S. military were shocked and appalled that interactions with fellow officers were where they experienced trauma, not on the battlefield or on the streets fighting crime.
Valdes, a 17-year Miami Gardens police veteran, said he was relieved of duty for six months without explanation and was only recently reinstated last week.
Valdes said he had led a violent crime unit credited with reducing crime by 14%, only to be abruptly removed and reassigned. He also alleged that the department has systematically replaced experienced Hispanic and white officers with younger Black officers.
Officer Francisco Mejido, a 13-year Miami Gardens police veteran, said his K-9 partner was taken away and he was removed from the unit after a minor body camera violation — even though his replacement had the same infraction.
'I had to break that news to my two young kids, to my wife,' Mejido said. 'Ever since then, the agency has come after me with multiple forms of discipline.'
He also spoke of a broader issue of inconsistent disciplinary practices and favoritism within the department.
Officer Juan Gonzalez, a 12-year Miami Gardens police veteran, described being reprimanded for speaking to other Hispanic officers at a crime scene.
'I was scolded for talking to Hispanic officers on scene,' Gonzalez said. 'I was followed by my supervisor in a threatening manner, in a hostile fighting position, with both fists clenched.'
Gonzalez said he was demoted and removed from a federal task force assignment, resulting in a loss of income.
The officers say their complaints to internal affairs, the city manager and human resources have been ignored. Now, they're turning to the courts.
'They've all stood up and complained,' Pizzi said. 'And they've all been targeted as a result of their complaints.'
Miami Herald staff writer Devoun Cetoute contributed to this report.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
5 hours ago
- New York Post
Former employee sues Major League Soccer for discrimination
Major League Soccer executives undermined a black marketing director after he complained that they gave a promised promotion to a white colleague — then fired him, he claimed in a lawsuit. Cedric Shine, who began at MLS in December 2022 as a brand marketer, was fired in May after months of poor treatment from top bosses at the soccer league, he said in a July 18 Manhattan Supreme Court lawsuit. Shine, 41, said he was told he was about to be given a new job as senior director of marketing for the league when new direct supervisors were installed in February. 3 Cedric Shine was hired by Major League Soccer in 2022. Cedric D. Shine/ LinkedIn But days later, the new bosses reversed course, he said in court papers. 'The decision to block Shine's promotion came mere weeks after Shine's new supervisors terminated one of the few Black Directors in the Marketing Department, Justin Cox,' according to the lawsuit. The higher level job was instead given to 'a Caucasian MLS Marketing Director,' Shine said in the legal filing. When he complained to MLS' human resources department about the move, 'and its racial implications,' Shine was promoted 'over his supervisors' objections' — triggering a 'campaign of retaliation against him,' he claimed. Bosses berated him, lied about him showing up late for work, slashed his marketing budget and would abruptly leave events he organized, leaving MLS corporate partners and MLS executives 'in attendance to question why marketing leadership was leaving the event and reflected extremely poorly on Shine,' he said in the litigation. 3 Shine claims he was the target of retaliation at work. Cedric D. Shine/ Instagram Questioning 'their views' on his performance 'would be frowned upon' and that he 'would be seen as someone who lacks the ability to accept constructive criticism,' bosses allegedly told Shine, he claimed in court papers. When other officials and MLS higher-ups ignored his complaints of retaliation, 'Shine attempted to schedule a meeting with MLS Deputy Commissioner Gary Stevenson, who oversaw the leadership team that had been retaliating against Shine.' Instead of a meeting with Stevenson, Shine was fired, according to the lawsuit. 3 Shine said his bosses lied about him arriving late for work. Cedric D. Shine/ Instagram 'As a proximate result of MLS' conduct, Shine has been adversely affected in his employment and career, emotional well-being, the quality of his life and in his normal life's pursuits, and Shine believes MLS' conduct … has and will continue to have a negative effect upon him.' Shine is seeking unspecified damages. The league, which has instituted anti-racism campaigns in the wake of several high profile incidents, denied Shine's accusations. 'Shine's allegations of retaliation have no merit and the League intends to vigorously defend the recently filed lawsuit,' MLS said in a statement, adding the league is committed 'to providing an equitable and inclusive environment.'


NBC News
6 hours ago
- NBC News
ICE targets Los Angeles homeless shelter
LOS ANGELES — Immigration officials have been repeatedly spotted outside a Hollywood homeless shelter since May, leading staff to accompany residents from war-torn countries to work, errands and court. An executive at the shelter that serves people ages 18 to 24 said she saw two Venezuelan men handcuffed and arrested by ICE agents after they returned to the shelter from work. 'There was no conversation,' said the employee, Lailanie, who asked that her last name not be used because she feared retribution from Immigration and Customs Enforcement. She said about half a dozen immigration officers went up to the residents 'and put their hands behind their backs right away.' Homeless shelters appear to be another target in the Trump administration's ongoing immigration crackdown, which has resulted in nearly 3,000 arrests in the Los Angeles area. They now join Home Depots, 7-Elevens and cannabis farms as locations where the federal government is carrying out its mass deportation effort. In addition to the Hollywood shelter, service providers have reported seeing immigration enforcement at shelters in North Hollywood and San Diego, according to local media. Immigration officials did not respond to an email asking if homeless shelters are being targeted as part of enforcement efforts. With more than than 72,300 unhoused people, Los Angeles County is the epicenter of the nation's homelessness crisis. How many of them are immigrants is unknown because the federally mandated annual count does not include citizenship questions. The encounter at the Hollywood shelter took place a few weeks before President Donald Trump ordered the National Guard and U.S. Marines to the region in response to large-scale protests against his deportation efforts. Service providers in Los Angeles said the stepped-up enforcement effort has made their work more difficult because their clients are consumed by fears of deportation. Donald Whitehead Jr., executive director of the National Coalition for the Homeless, said the aggressive operation 'puts a target' on the backs of homeless immigrants. 'It villainizes them,' he said. At another shelter, The People Concern in downtown Los Angeles, fewer clients are stopping by to use showers and other public facilities because they are afraid ICE agents will show up, said CEO John Maceri. He said even U.S. citizens at its permanent housing facility in the San Fernando Valley are hesitant to go outside because they are afraid they will be stopped and questioned by ICE. 'Frankly, anybody who's dark-skinned, Black and brown people, but particularly dark-skinned brown people, don't want to go out,' Maceri said. 'They don't want to go to the grocery store. A few of them are missing work. They're really scared. This fear factor is really taking effect.' The highest concentrations of ICE arrests in Los Angeles have occurred in the predominantly Latino neighborhoods of the San Fernando Valley, according to the nonprofit Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, or CHIRLA. U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, who is from the San Fernando Valley and was himself handcuffed by federal agents last month at a news conference by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, said the numbers reflect a strategy by the Trump administration to target vulnerable communities, not just the violent criminals he promised to arrest during his campaign. 'This is an administration who proudly changed policy to pursue these enforcement actions in workplaces, in schools, including elementary schools, and houses of worship,' he said. 'If they were only focusing on dangerous, violent criminals, you're not going to find them at schools and churches and homeless camps.' A map released Tuesday by CHIRLA showed that 471 of the 2,800 arrests made by the Department of Homeland Security from June 6 to July 20 occurred in predominantly Latino neighborhoods in the San Fernando Valley. It did not specify how many of the arrestees were homeless people. CHIRLA President Angelica Salas said the data highlighted 'racial profiling' by federal officials, who have denied targeting people based on their skin color. 'What makes someone a target of ICE is if they are illegally in the U.S. — NOT their skin color, race, or ethnicity,' DHS said in a recent statement. On Thursday, Trump signed an executive order that encourages cities to remove homeless people from their streets. Whitehead said the order could trigger more arrests of homeless people and further heighten their fears. At the homeless shelter where the two Venezuelan men were arrested, residents remain on high alert, Lailanie said. Immigrants are now accompanied to work, errands and court appointments by staff in unmarked cars without the organization's logo. Officials at the shelter requested that its name not be used out of fear of retribution by the Trump administration. The Venezuelans, who are 20 and 22 years old, barely speak English and had been living at the shelter for a few weeks before they were arrested, she said. They had not been there long enough to be paired with immigration lawyers, she said. The 22-year-old was deported, and employees have been unable to locate the younger man, she said. Since the arrests, staff members have witnessed at least three immigration stakeouts around the facility, two shelter employees said. On one occasion, a uniformed officer asked to use a bathroom inside the center. A maintenance worker allowed him to enter because he didn't know what else to do, the two employees said. Staffers have also seen unmarked black SUVs parked near the center and in the parking lot. Most recently, an asylum-seeker from the Democratic Republic of Congo who had been living at the shelter was arrested after reporting to immigration court, according to two people who work at the shelter. The employees said that before his arrest, he had difficulty applying for jobs because he wore an ankle monitor, which was given to him when he presented himself to immigration officials. Confused, he went to immigration court and asked officials to remove the monitor, the two employees said, but he was arrested instead. He was taken to the High Desert Detention Center in Adelanto, California, while his lawyer pleaded his asylum case, which is still pending, according to Lailanie. He fears being returned to central Africa, where his father was killed, she said. 'People are scared and people are hurting, but people are also compelled to continue to do the work and do the right thing and try to fight for the right thing,' she said.


New York Times
8 hours ago
- New York Times
Should I Blow the Whistle in a Hiring Process Biased in My Favor?
I have been out of work for four months. I recently had an interview for a management-level position in my field, during which the interviewer asked a number of questions regarding my marital status, parental status and spouse's occupation. I've spent most of my career in management, and the questions are clearly inappropriate and at odds with civil rights protections. I answered the questions, because I knew the responses would be in my favor: I'm a middle-aged guy whose spouse works remotely and son is in college. I'm aware of an internal candidate for the job, a younger mother of two school-age children, and the interviewer made comments about divided responsibilities and time commitments. I kind of need the job, which raises two scenarios. In the first, I withdraw from the process. Should I notify the internal candidate of the legal violation, because I suspect (although have not confirmed) that the same questions were asked of her? In the second, I accept the position. How should I deal with the other candidate, who would be my subordinate, knowing that a likely E.E.O.C. violation tainted my hire? And additionally, should I notify the E.E.O.C. myself, regardless of whether I continue with this company? — Name Withheld From the Ethicist: If you're thinking about taking action, you would be wise to talk with an employment lawyer. But the questions you mention plainly have no place in a job interview. And the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's guidelines are explicit about this: Such questions 'may be regarded as evidence of intent to discriminate.' Let's assume, in any case, that your suspicion is justified: that the company's questions crossed a line and did so not out of clumsy curiosity but in a way that tilted the scales against the internal candidate, a younger mother with two school-age kids. Maybe, as you have reason to wonder, the interviewer pressed her on whether she would be able to handle the job with her 'divided responsibilities.' This could well count as evidence of discrimination. Yet if you got the offer, you still couldn't be sure that it was because you were judged the 'safe' candidate. You don't actually know what happened in her interview or how management was weighing the candidates. Maybe you were always going to be the preferred pick, for reasons that have nothing to do with family logistics. Suppose, though, that you're offered the job, and it's clear that the process was wrongly stacked in your favor. The moral calculus gets thornier. Is it right to accept a job you need and are qualified for if you know the offer was tainted by bias? Turning down such a position is an especially steep price for you to pay. The internal candidate keeps her job, even if she loses out on the better one she was hoping for. That's significant, but it's not quite the same as going without a paycheck. If you were positive that you were offered the job because of unlawful discrimination, I would tell you to decline and notify both the internal candidate and the E.E.O.C. what happened. The company should be held to account and made to reform its ways. 'Conference, conciliation and persuasion' — the usual E.E.O.C. route — happens only if someone calls out the wrongdoing. But right now you don't have that certainty. Given this, I don't think you need to torch your own prospects. You may take the job if it's offered. Once you're a manager, you'll treat your subordinate with the respect she deserves. You don't owe her a confession about your suspicions, if suspicions are all you have. What you do owe her, and every colleague, is to push for a culture where these questions are never asked of job applicants again. A Bonus Question A couple of years ago, I learned that my uncle sexually abused his three daughters when they were young. As someone who was also a victim of sexual abuse as a child, I find his actions deeply appalling on many levels. Whenever he calls my mother, she accepts his calls, most likely because he's her brother, but keeps them short. My father is currently in palliative care, and we're expecting his passing soon. Although I do not want my uncle to attend the funeral, my mother won't exclude him, even though he was excluded from his own wife's funeral. Is it acceptable for me to ignore him, as my sister-in-law plans to do? I'm uncertain about how my uncle will be received by his remaining siblings, and I don't want the funeral to become a day remembered for the wrong reasons. — Name Withheld From the Ethicist: Your sister-in-law has the right idea. This isn't an occasion for your appalling relative to be affirmed or accepted, but neither is it an occasion for confronting him. Don't let the day become about this man. The focus should be on the person you're mourning. Readers Respond The previous question was from a reader who is tired of a friend talking about wanting to escape the country's current political climate by moving abroad. She wrote: I have a wealthy friend (not billions, but well over $20 million) who talks almost incessantly about leaving the country because of her and her family's concerns about the current political situation. Nearly every week, it's another 'Check this one out!' — always accompanied by a link to a villa in the south of France or a seaside four-bedroom condo overlooking the coast of Spain. I'm not the sort to let money drive a relationship; I don't defer to wealthy people, and I wouldn't expect deference if the roles were reversed. So how do you navigate things when you're simply tired of hearing the same conversation on wash, rinse, repeat? I can't just say: 'Stop. Your friends with less money don't want to hear it.' That would only create anger. But 'Have you thought about how these comments affect others?' feels condescending. I'm not sure it's appropriate to tell her to stop, or how to do it. — Name Withheld In his response, the Ethicist noted: I can imagine other misgivings you might have about these upscale escape fantasies. When the political weather in your country turns threatening, there's much to be said for staying put, if you safely can, and trying to make things better. Given her resources, your friend might wrest herself from the Sotheby's International Realty website and spend more time reviewing political campaigns that could benefit from her backing. … You don't have to make it a confrontation. There are plenty of ways to signal the realities she's exasperatingly deaf to. The next time she sends you a link to a coastal villa, you might respond with a listing for a studio apartment in a Communist-era block in Bucharest — ample stair climbing, intermittent hot water and panoramic views of concrete — explaining that it better fits your budget. If she's miffed for a minute, that's the price of honesty. And a small one, surely, compared to that spread in Cap Ferrat. Reread the full question and answer here. ⬥ The recommendation that the writer shoot back an equally inappropriate rental suggestion was just petty and passive-aggressive, serving only to irk, if not confuse, the clueless wealthy friend. Honesty among friends is always best. — Bonnie ⬥ I agree that the writer's friend's 'humble brag' is obnoxious and out of touch. I've had friends and relatives like this (in a different tax bracket) over the years who have consistently mentioned vacations that they knew I could never afford as a single mom. I came to wonder if their intentions were really that innocent. To me, it did start to feel meanspirited and condescending … 'nice nasty,' as my grandmother used to call it. Hmmm. Maybe the writer should find some more sensitive friends? — Pier ⬥ Not a fan of the passive-aggressive solution the Ethicist suggests. Better to be straightforward and have an honest conversation with the clueless friend. Something on the order of: 'Deciding to leave our country rather than remaining and working to improve things is absolutely your right. Still, for those of us not inclined to seek that solution, regardless of our personal reasons, we just can't get into your weekly searches. Could you wait until you've actually found your dream home and share that with us? Sharing your joy and the start of your new adventure is something we can celebrate with you.' A polite way of saying, 'We're just not into your ongoing real estate search.' — Emme ⬥ I love what the Ethicist suggests about sending her friend the picture of a meager apartment in Bucharest. That's good! But I don't understand what's wrong with what the writer herself came up with: 'Stop. Your friends with less money don't want to hear it.' I think that is a direct and genuine response with just the right amount of pique. —Mary Anne ⬥ I think the suggestion that the questioner respond with an 'idealized post-communist flat' was misguided. I think a better suggestion would be to respond with a more modest listing in a nonexotic location that reflects both the economic realities of the questioner and the realities of European life at that finance level. — Brian ⬥ To me, the issue is not what exotic locale to flee to, it's the focus on fleeing, and on that being something some of us may aspire to. My suggested response would be, 'Whatever the situation is, I'm not moving, so please don't send me any more real estate suggestions.' — Linda