10 Years, Continual Run-Ins

From Jason Bandy’s first year on the job as a New Haven cop in 2009, four chiefs have tried to take action against what they considered dangerous or unprofessional behavior.

He still has his badge and gun.

To obtain a clearer picture of Bandy’s survival on the force, the Independent reviewed a decade’s worth of Internal Affairs disciplinary records, media reports, and various state lawsuits filed by the officer against the department. Those documents reveal a long history of disputes between the police officer — who hosts a weekly podcast promoting QAnon conspiracy theories and runs a side business selling ​“pre workout vapes” — and NHPD brass over his fitness to serve.

None of these records points to any racial bias, alleged civil rights violation, or other act of discriminatory behavior perpetrated by Bandy on the job. 

Instead, they flush out four different police chiefs’ failed attempts to discipline or fire Bandy for, among other reasons, anger management issues and unprofessional conduct.

They also document Bandy’s push-back at every turn — including through two state lawsuits — in which the officer claims that he is psychologically stable, does not have anger issues, and has been unfairly targeted for discipline by police leaders who simply do not like him.

Drunken Ruckus; Fired, Rehired; ​“Anger Issue”

The first dispute dates back to October 2009, when the then-24-year-old rookie cop called out sick from work, got drunk at a downtown bar with two colleagues, peed on the bar floor, and refused orders from two bouncers and a police officer to leave the club.

Then-Police Chief James Lewis found Bandy guilty of 10 departmental violations and pushed for his firing. Bandy was also arrested for second-degree breach of peace, disorderly conduct, and interfering with police. 

The police commission followed through on firing the officer. Then the police union successfully fought for him to be reinstated on his job.

The first personnel memorandum on file in Bandy’s IA disciplinary records is that settlement agreement between the city and the union, dated June 1, 2010. 

The agreement overturned Bandy’s termination from earlier that year and imposed instead a one-year unpaid suspension, allowing him to return to work on Jan. 13, 2011.

“Officer Bandy agrees that, as a condition of returning to duty, he will be subject to two fitness for duty evaluations by a doctor of the City’s choice,” the agreement reads. ​“If he does not pass either one of the two fitness for duty evaluations, he will be terminated, with no right of appeal.”

Neither Bandy’s IA record nor the state court system’s online record database showed any record of Bandy’s ruckus at the downtown bar and subsequent arrest. 

A May 2011 New Haven Register article sheds some light on why that might be the case — and also offers further insight on Bandy’s mental state at the time.

The Register article notes that Bandy filed for a special form of probation that would leave him without a record.

It also notes that in late January, East Haven police responded to his mother’s house on a domestic call and ​“sent Bandy to the hospital for an evaluation after learning he had threatened suicide, court documents show. His mother told police that he had an anger issue and he had trouble controlling it without medication. At the time, Bandy told police that he had stopped taking his prescription.”

A 2015 lawsuit filed by Bandy against the local police department (see more below) also points to why Bandy’s bar incident was not in his IA file.

“Approximately 1 – 2 years prior to 2015, the plaintiff applied to have the 2009 incident stricken from his work/employment file which was shortly thereafter granted,” that complaint reads.

“Disrespectful And Having No Fear Of Reprimand”

The second set of documents in Bandy’s IA file describe two internal investigations conducted in 2015.

The first investigation pertained to a Sept. 30, 2014 incident that occurred when Bandy was directing traffic on Crown Street near Gateway Community College.

According to the IA personnel memorandum dated March 25, 2015, which provides a summary of the 2014 incident and of the subsequent recommended discipline, Bandy stopped a woman in her vehicle before she was able to enter the garage that previous fall. 

“During this stop words were exchanged between” Bandy and the woman. As the latter began to pull away, ​“Officer Bandy grabbed the door handle of the moving vehicle.”

The internal investigation did not substantiate allegations by the woman that Bandy was verbally abusive at the time. ​“However, grabbing the door handle of the moving vehicle was neither safe nor tactical and constituted a violation of the training curriculum on motor vehicle stops.”

The personnel memorandum also references a second incident, from Feb. 5, 2015, that took place at a Taco Bell restaurant on Foxon Boulevard.

According to the report, Bandy pulled into the parking lot to use the restaurant’s bathroom.

“He parked his patrol vehicle diagonally across two handicapped parking spaces,” the memorandum reads. ​“He was approached by a citizen who told Officer Bandy that he was blocking two handicap spaces. Officer Bandy replied, ​‘What are you gonna do, write me a ticket?’ The citizen described Bandy as disrespectful and having no fear of reprimand by his command.”

The department found Bandy in violation of a rule pertaining to conduct unbecoming an officer, as well as of a general order pertaining to the operation and use of police vehicles.

Former Chief Dean Esserman wrote in that same memorandum that he met with Bandy on March 16, 2015 to render his discipline for the two violations.

“I gave him the option to voluntarily seek anger management training with [redacted]. He was to arrange for this training of his own accord within one day of the discipline meeting. He has failed to schedule this training and, as such, he is hereby ordered to contact [redacted] and schedule anger management sessions no later than Friday, March 27, 2015.”

“Not One Instance Of Temper Or Anger Problems”

Five months after Bandy received that second round of discipline, and the order to attend anger management counseling, the officer sued the department.

According to the complaint filed in state court on Aug. 19, 2015, Bandy accused former Chief Esserman and former Assistant Chief Luiz Casanova of violating his Constitutional rights to equal protection, free speech, and due process.

The complaints points back to the 2009 incident at the bar, Bandy’s subsequent one-year suspension, and his reinstatement with the department in early 2011.

“Since the plaintiff returned to work as a police officer, the plaintiff was continuously and repeatedly assigned to detention/booking, which is commonly known by officers as being a form of punishment and for officers that the department’s administration did not want on the streets.”

The lawsuit states that, even though Bandy successfully petitioned for the department to strike his past documented misbehavior and discipline from his record, Esserman and Casanova ​“have and continue to refer to the 2009 incident from his file, and repeatedly rely on the stricken 2009 incident as a pre-text for unfounded discipline and retaliatory harassment and as a bias to threaten to make a ​‘pattern case’ against the plaintiff to terminate his employment.”

The complaint also argues that Bandy was ​“singled out, treated differently, and discriminated against for his tattoos.” (See more below.) It states that Bandy was informed by his supervisors and union members to keep his hands underneath the table or otherwise out of sight when speaking with Esserman and Casanova ​“to avoid the defendants from complaining about or holding a bias against the plaintiff for having tattoos.”

In July 2014, the complaint alleges, ​“and on multiple occasions prior thereto,” Bandy was dispatched to a particular location for ​“claimed domestic disputes and neighbor disputes that involved Assistant Chief Casanova’s brother.”

It states that, when Bandy arrived at the scene of each claimed dispute, the assistant chief’s brother ​“threatened the plaintiff among other things that ​‘he better watch it or he will have [the plaintiff and other officer’s] fucking job’” and implied retaliation by the assistant chief.

“During the July 2014 incident involving the defendant’s brother, the plaintiff did not say or do what was appropriate and required of him as a police because of the plaintiff’s fear of retaliation from the defendant Assistant Chief Casanova given the defendant had expressed his personal opinion numerous times that the plaintiff should not be a police officer and threatened the plaintiff to watch himself or he will be fired,” the complaint reads.

The lawsuit then references the two citizen complaints filed against Bandy in 2014 and 2015. It states that ​“the plaintiff was cleared and no wrongdoing was found” in regards to those cases.

It alleges that Esserman ​“had private meetings with a New Haven citizen as well as a local prominent pastor with personal ties to Chief Esserman” who demanded that Esserman take action against Bandy.

“Following Chief Esserman’s private meetings with the citizen and pastor, the plaintiff was ordered to Chief Esserman’s office on multiple occasions wherein the defendants Chief Esserman and Assistant Chief Casanova bullied and belittled the plaintiff about not only the citizen complaints but also random, unrelated, and irrelevant aspects about the plaintiff as well as the 2009 incident that was stricken from the plaintiff’s employment file.”

The lawsuit alleges that Esserman and Casanova ​“unreasonably accused the plaintiff of having a temper/anger problem without any foundation”.

When Bandy replied that ​“there was not one instance in his career that he exhibited temper or anger problems,” Esserman allegedly replied, ​“If you’re going to push our hand, we’re going to make a pattern case against you.”

Bandy declined to seek anger management counseling. He insisted he did not have anger or temper problems. Police brass persisted.

“The defendant Chief Esserman unreasonably ordered the plaintiff to go to anger management counseling,” the complaint reads.

Intentionally Defective Firearm? ​“Falsified” Evidence?

The complaint pivots halfway through from focusing on what Bandy believed to be unfounded allegations of anger issues to Esserman and Casanova conspiring to get the officer fired by deliberately issuing him a defective firearm.

Bandy said he got that broken gun in 2014. He accused the chief and assistant chief of giving him a defective firearm because of their ​“opinions that the plaintiff should not be employed as a New Haven police officer and does not deserve to be a police officer”.

“The plaintiff was intentionally issued the defective firearm in the defendants’ attempt to put the plaintiff in a situation where he would falter or otherwise fail to handle the situation adequately so as to create a basis to terminate the plaintiff’s employment,” the lawsuit contends.

It states that Bandy first learned that the gun was broken six months after it was issued.

He was in a shooting trailer for police training with two colleagues. He tried to fire his gun, but to no avail. His two colleagues then took their turns trying to fire Bandy’s gun. No luck. Bandy said he completed his training that day with one of his colleague’s firearms, instead.

Bandy said he notified the department and his supervisors about the problem and asked for an investigation.

“After the plaintiff learned his firearm was defective, the defendants Chief Esserman and/or Assistant Chief Casanova deliberately concealed the fact that the plaintiff’s firearm was defective and prevented the plaintiff from learning what was defective within the gun.”

The lawsuit claims that one of Bandy’s colleagues was ordered to draft a memo and ​“falsify the facts surrounding the firearm incident in the shooting trailer.”

It also claims that one of Bandy’s colleagues, at the direction of Esserman, Casanova, or some other supervisor, ​“fabricated a cell phone video of officers firing what was purportedly the plaintiff’s firearm several weeks after he complained of it not functioning.”

Bandy claimed that this memo and the cell phone video were all fabricated ​“in an effort to conceal the defendants’ intentional issuance of a known malfunctioning firearm to the plaintiff and to cover-up the defendants’ motive to issue the plaintiff a defective firearm.”

The lawsuit claims that, because of the alleged deliberate issuance of a defective firearm and subsequent coverup, Bandy ​“has suffered severe emotional distress, humiliation, loss of self-esteem and emotional well-being, and loss of reputation and standing within the police department.”

Bandy said he has applied for numerous open positions within the department, including field training officer positions, the street interdiction union, and the narcotics unit. He has been denied every time because, the lawsuit claims, of the ​“stigma” associated with his stricken 2009 incident.

“As a result of the defandant’s conduct, the plaintiff has suffered a loss of his constitutional rights, humiliation, financial damages, loss of employment opportunities, advancement in training, loss of self-esteem and emotional well-being, loss of reputation and standing within the police department, other prospective employers, and the public, and suffered severe emotional and mental stress.”

City-hired attorneys responded in November 2015 with a court filing that called for the dismissal on the grounds that Bandy had not come close to proving that the department had violated his rights.

“Plaintiff seemingly bases his claims on the fact that the individual defendants did not like him as much as others,” the response reads. ​“This, although likely inconvenient for Plaintiff, does not rise to unlawful behavior.”

State Superior Court Judge Robert Chatigny ruled against Bandy and in favor of the city on April 21, 2016. The judge granted the motion to dismiss the federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

Tattoos; Grooming Standards; ​“Gender Discrimination”

The third personnel memorandum in Bandy’s NHPD internal affairs file dates to May 2, 2019.

The memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the city and the police union pertains to the department finding Bandy in violation of the general order on grooming standards, which requires officers to maintain a professional appearance. The department found Bandy in violation of such an order because of his tattoos.

Like two of his predecessors, current Police Chief Otoniel Reyes moved to terminate Bandy’s employment in March of 2019.

The MOU, however, states that Bandy shall be deemed in compliance with the departmental grooming standards so long as he covers his tattoos while on duty with make-up and concealer that fully obscure the three tattoos on his face.

“The City and the Union shall continue to develop a departmental policy that further defines the standards for tattoos,” the MOU reads.

Five months later, Bandy sued the city again.

His Sept. 5, 2019 complaint alleges that Bandy was the victim of gender discrimination, and suffered emotional distress stemming from his employment with the city police department.

The lawsuit states that when Bandy was hired as an officer, he had tattoos on his body ​“and has continued to add tattoos to his head, face and neck over time.”

Around Oct. 1, 2018, the lawsuit alleges, former Chief Anthony Campbell required Bandy to remove tattoos located along the hairline of his head and face by laser surgery or else he would be fired.

“There are no rules, regulations or policies of the New Haven Police Department prohibiting tattoos or body art,” the lawsuit states.

“No female member of the New Haven Police Department has ever been disciplined by virtue of her piercings, nail polish, makeup, hair dye, jewelry, or tattooed eyebrows.”

The lawsuit states that Bandy ​“has been continuously harassed and his career threatened by virtue of his facial tattoos.” This constitutes gender discrimination under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, he stated.

The lawsuit states that Bandy filed a complaint with the state Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities about the alleged gender discrimination on March 18, 2019. He said that the police department retaliated against him by putting him on administrative leave and threatening to suspend him unless he withdrew his complaint.

The city responded by moving to dismiss the case because Bandy failed to file his suit within the 90-day statute of limitations required following the filing of his CHRO complaint. 

State Superior Court Judge James Abrams ruled in April 2020 in favor of the city, and dismissed the case.

The department is currently conducting an internal affairs investigation into Bandy’s social media postings.

Bandy also earned praise from the department this January when he and another officer ran into a burning building and helped people escape safely.