Assemb. Joe DeStefano’s Lawyers Argue He Has “Qualified Immunity”

This is a paid post contributed by a Patch Community Partner. The views expressed in this post are the author's own, and the information presented has not been verified by Patch.

A former staffer says Assemb. DeStefano pressured her into a sexual relationship, then fired her. His lawyers say he may not be personally liable.

By the Suffolk County Democratic Committee

Subscribe

Voters in the 3rd Assembly District are entitled to know the type of office their representative is running. A lawsuit filed by a former member of his staff raises serious questions on that point, and the response from the assemblyman's lawyers raises more.

What the lawsuit alleges

Jane Doe [note: we will refer to the staffer by a pseudonym, for privacy] served as director of community affairs in Assemblyman Joe DeStefano's office for 19 months beginning in January 2023. A complaint filed in State Supreme Court in October 2024 accuses DeStefano of "coercing [Doe] to have sexual relations with him to keep her job."

According to court records, Jane Doe says DeStefano tried to kiss her on two occasions at campaign events in March and April 2024. She says she initially resisted but later relented in May of 2024, stating "(DeStefano's) position as my boss and supervisor was a motivating favor in my acquiescence to a romantic relationship with him."

She alleges that the relationship became hostile, with DeStefano becoming possessive and controlling – so much so, that he "would regularly go through [Doe's] phone and question her about who she was talking to." She claims she tried to break off this relationship beginning in July, but those attempts were not successful. By her account, it finally ended on Aug. 17, and on Sept. 2, he asked for her resignation. She says he "forced" her to resign on Sept. 18, 2024, because she ended the relationship.

Her suit claims violations of New York's Human Rights Law, which prohibits "quid pro quo" sexual harassment, referring to conditioning employment on sexual relations. Newsday also reports that the Assemblyman is married, and was during the time of these allegations.

The assemblyman's response

The Times Union reported DeStefano's attorneys do not deny a "consensual" relationship, but dispute that its end was connected to her resignation, calling that link "conclusory." His lawyers also raise procedural defenses. They argue the case belongs in the Court of Claims, and that DeStefano may be entitled to "qualified immunity" as a government official. On the request for her resignation, they wrote that it "may also be seen as a discretionary act" deserving that protection. Qualified immunity generally shields government officials from individual liability in civil suits.

Current status of the case

The lawsuit has since been stuck in the court system without a ruling on the underlying allegations.

On Jan. 9, 2026, the Supreme Court referred the suit to the Court of Claims, concluding it lacked the necessary subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the case. Notably, the court did not comment on the merits or truth of the allegations.

On Jan. 21, Jane Doe's attorneys filed an appeal. They argue that because the conduct alleged was not performed in DeStefano's official capacity as a state employee, the Supreme Court does have subject matter jurisdiction, and therefore does not belong in the Court of Claims.

As of publication, this appeal has not yet been ruled on by the Supreme Court.

Why it matters

These are allegations. A court has not ruled on them, and DeStefano has the right to defend himself. But a legal strategy that leans on "qualified immunity" for a decision to fire a staffer with whom he had a sexual relationship is worth the public's attention. It invites a plain question: is that the standard of accountability the district expects of its representative?

There is also a transparency problem. As the Times Union noted, misconduct allegations in the Assembly are typically reviewed by an Ethics Committee whose deliberations are closed to the public. Often, the public learns of a claim only if Assembly leadership in both parties chooses to penalize the member. The court records may be the only window voters get.

Josh Slaughter believes public office carries a higher standard –for how our elected officials conduct themselves, the issues they focus on, and how they answer hard questions. Voters deserve a representative who meets that standard in the open.

This post is an advertorial piece contributed by a Patch Community Partner, a local brand partner. To learn more, click here.