A 40-year veteran of the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office has filed a lawsuit claiming she faced discrimination and demotions while caring for her dying parents, highlighting potential systemic issues within one of the nation’s most prominent prosecutorial offices.
At a Glance
- Joan Davila, who has worked at the Manhattan DA’s Office since 1984, alleges “caretaker discrimination, retaliation and harassment” following her use of family leave to care for ill parents
- Her health insurance was temporarily revoked, she was removed from her position heading the extradition office, and she was denied overtime opportunities
- Davila claims her complaints to superiors, including the District Attorney, went unaddressed
- Her attorney argues the DA’s Office violated anti-discrimination laws and must be held accountable
- The DA’s office and city’s Law Department have not commented on the pending litigation
Four Decades of Service Met with Alleged Discrimination
Joan Davila began her career at the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office in 1984, starting as a clerk and working her way up to overseeing the extradition office. Her lawsuit claims the workplace discrimination began in 2019 when she first used paid family leave to care for her elderly parents. According to court documents, the alleged retaliation intensified over time, culminating in her removal from the extradition position she had held for years and a series of professional setbacks that fundamentally changed her standing in the office where she had built her career.
The lawsuit details a particularly difficult period when Davila returned from family leave in early 2023 only to discover her position had been given to another employee. She was offered an alternative role but allegedly faced continued retaliation when her father required additional care in 2024. This pattern of alleged discrimination has prompted legal action against an office responsible for upholding justice in one of America’s largest jurisdictions.
Serious Allegations of Workplace Misconduct
Davila’s lawsuit outlines troubling instances of alleged workplace harassment. Court documents claim her supervisor, Siobhan Carty, imposed erratic deadlines and denied overtime opportunities. Perhaps most disturbingly, Davila alleges she was explicitly told to stop discussing her deceased father. The lawsuit further states that her health insurance was abruptly canceled during this period of family crisis, and she missed two paychecks—incidents she believes constituted direct retaliation for exercising her family leave rights.
“When the DA’s Office violates anti-discrimination laws, it betrays the very principles it is sworn to uphold — and it must be held accountable.” Her lawyer, John Scola, added.
Meetings with her union representatives and the office’s chief operating officer reportedly proved unproductive. Her direct appeals to higher authorities within the organization, including the District Attorney himself, allegedly went unaddressed. The lawsuit claims this lack of responsiveness from leadership left Davila with no choice but to pursue legal action to address what she describes as systematic discrimination against employees with caregiver responsibilities.
Professional Impact and Loss of Status
The professional impact of the alleged discrimination extended beyond emotional distress. According to the lawsuit, after returning from caring for her parents, Davila was reassigned to tasks typically performed by paralegals and analysts—a significant demotion from her former leadership position. Her requests to work from home were allegedly denied despite such accommodations being granted to other employees. The cumulative effect of these actions reportedly created a hostile work environment for a long-tenured public servant.
“I was coming back to nothing,” she told The Post. “I was devastated.”
Davila expressed in her statement that such treatment would not have occurred under former District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, suggesting a shift in workplace culture at the office. Her attorney, John Scola, has framed the case as emblematic of a broader failure by the office to uphold anti-discrimination laws—the very laws the District Attorney’s Office is tasked with enforcing. Neither the DA’s office nor the city’s Law Department has commented on the pending litigation.
