PSYCHOLOGICAL DISQUALIFICATION
Government job applicants can be disqualified from employment for various reasons, including character (honesty and trustworthiness), medical (physical) and psychological (mental). Of all these, psychological disqualifications are the most challenging, and unfortunately, they also can be the most damaging to your future employment if not handled correctly. A psychological disqualification has the real potential to ruin your job opportunities.
Psychological disqualification appeal cases involve a psychological or psychiatric expert witness, who provides an opinion about your mental suitability for employment. Commonly, the opinion also highlights any disagreement that the expert has with the agency disqualification.
It is very important that the psychological expert have sufficient experience in the field of related disqualifications. As example, if you are a police candidate then you should obtain the services of a psychologist who has experience with police psychological disqualification appeals.
You also should consult with an attorney who is knowledgeable about your kind of case. Many legal issues arise in the preparation of appeals, and it is very unlikely that you or your psychologist will be able to deal with these properly. The best representation for you will occur when an experienced lawyer and psychologist work together.
PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW, MEDICAL REVIEW & CHARACTER REVIEW - PSYCHOLOGICAL HOLD, MEDICAL HOLD
& CHARACTER HOLD
Government employment candidates frequently are told that they are on "review" or "hold." Sometimes this occurs because the agency must gather more information about you before making a hiring decision. However, in many cases review and hold are just excuses to avoid giving any decision. This can happen when the agency does not wish to hire you, but also does not have a very strong reason to disqualify you. Instead of issuing a disqualification which you can appeal---an appeal which you might win---the agency puts you on review. While on review, your Eligible List gets closer to expiring with each passing day, but you cannot appeal because there is no decision to appeal. In other words, you are left waiting until the Eligible List expires, after which time you cannot be hired.
This is a very abusive government practice, and it destroys your right to use the disqualification appeal process. Most unfortunate is that, by the time some candidates realize what has been done to them, it is too late to get legal help.
You should be in contact monthly with your investigator so that you are up-to-date about your employment application status. If you are told that you are on review or hold, then do not wait more than three months before seeking legal advice. With enough time remaining on the Eligible List, we may well be able to help you get off review or hold. Our office has done this many times for many job candidates.
NOTICE OF PROPOSED DISQUALIFICATION & NOTICE OF DISQUALIFICATION
For many years, when a New York City agency wanted to disqualify you from employment, it would issue a "Notice of Disqualification" which could be appealed to the Civil Service Commission. However, this procedure was not correct under the Civil Service Law, which requires that candidates be told in advance why they are going to be disqualified, and be offered an opportunity to argue against a disqualification before it becomes final.
The Civil Service Commission began alerting agencies that they were not following the law, and the result now is the "Notice of Proposed Disqualification" (N.O.P.D.). It notifies you that you have 30 days to ask the agency to "reconsider" the proposal to disqualify. Only after receiving your reconsideration appeal and supporting evidence will the agency then issue you a final decision; usually a Notice of Disqualification.
In practice, all that has changed is that most of what you previously had to do when appealing a Notice of Disqualification, now is done when you receive an N.O.P.D. Instead of appealing a disqualification to the Civil Service Commission, now a reconsideration appeal is sent to the agency first, and after final disqualification you appeal to the Civil Service Commission.
Nevertheless, while only a minor change in procedure has occurred, there is an important consequence. If you wait until the N.O.P.D. process is over before contacting an attorney, you may have hurt your appeal seriously. This is because all supporting papers and other evidence must be given to the agency during the N.O.P.D. process. Once the agency issues a final disqualification, the "administrative record" is closed, and further evidence that later you might want to submit to the Civil Service Commission can be ruled "inadmissible." So if you do not put your best foot forward during the N.O.P.D. process---using all legal resources available---then the case could be defective when it goes to the Commission.
Experience has shown that good attorneys almost always can make a case better and stronger if consulted early enough. You may understand some of the good evidence in your case, and medical experts should be able to identify relevant medical issues. But almost always, you will overlook helpful legal points, or worse, you will use evidence that actually hurts your case. Also, you might assume that your case is "good enough" to win, and decide that you will call a lawyer only if you lose the N.O.P.D. appeal. But by then, the damage already has been done. The best course is to contact counsel immediately upon receiving a Notice of Proposed Disqualification, or any other negative notice from an agency.
PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERVIEW PREPARATION - PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION PREPARATION
Almost all police and public safety agencies will screen you for psychological suitability, and usually this involves three steps. First, questions about personal history. Second, psychometric tests (including the MMPI-2 and Cornell Index) and questionnaires. And third, a psychological interview; sometimes more than one.
You can make serious mistakes at all levels. With psychometric testing, the usual mistake is answering questions in a way that you believe will make you look better. But since the tests are geared to measure such "faking good," the result is a test score which hurts you. So the best advice regarding these tests simply is to answer all questions honestly.
However, far more important than test scores is your performance during the psychological interview. The interview is the culmination of the entire psychological evaluation process, and if you do poorly, then your fate is sealed. No amount of good personal history or test scores will compensate for a bad interview. Unfortunately, few candidates know how to present themselves well, and very often make significant errors that lead to disqualification.
Since candidates usually have no experience with psychological interviews, the failure rate is not surprising. And in New York City, the failure rate is higher than the national average. This means that the chance of psychological disqualification is greater than most other places, and many candidates who never imagine that they will be disqualified receive a nasty surprise in the mailbox.
Keep in mind, you do not need to have a mental illness to be disqualified, and disqualified candidates usually have no mental condition at all. What they almost always have in common is that they did badly during the interview.
The good news is that you can be well prepared for a psychological interview, but only if you are counseled by someone who understands the process---such as an attorney with many years experience in psychological disqualification cases. Just like taking an S.A.T. prep course, or a class that teaches job interview skills, you can learn how to handle a psychological interview also. Some candidates who received counseling later remarked about how easy the psychological interview seemed, and how difficult it would have been without preparation.
Do not "cast your fate to the wind" and pray for a good outcome. Maximize your chances of success by being prepared for the psychological evaluation.
HOW TO CHOOSE YOUR ATTORNEY
A case from some time ago highlights the importance of your selecting legal counsel very carefully.
The client had employed an attorney for representation on a police disqualification appeal. There were four reasons given for the disqualification, but the attorney mistakenly filed appeal papers with the civil service commission addressing only three. The fourth basis for disqualification was overlooked.
The commission considered the case, and reversed the three disqualification reasons appealed. However, since the fourth reason was not raised, the commission affirmed the disqualification on that single basis. Upon realizing his mistake, the attorney submitted an additional appeal to the commission, but it was too late, and the commission refused to re-open the matter. Thus, the client lost an almost certainly winning appeal merely because his lawyer was not careful.
While a situation like this seems incredible, unfortunately, it happens more than most people are aware. Many clients choose counsel on the basis of advertising alone, or even worse, price. Regret commonly is the result.
Legal services are like all others: You get what you pay for. Experienced lawyers with proven records of success charge more for their work, just as experienced doctors earn more than interns. You need to keep this in mind when retaining an attorney.
HOW YOU CAN USE AN ARTICLE 78
The New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (C.P.L.R.) gives you the right to sue a government agency for various reasons, and many cases involve Article 78 of the C.P.L.R.
An Article 78 proceeding is used, among other reasons, when you want to challenge a government agency decision, or force an agency to do something. As example, when an agency issues a bad decision about you, usually it can be challenged in court under Article 78. Or, the agency might be refusing to issue a decision at all. To force the agency to act, you can use an Article 78 proceeding.
However, you must use all available agency procedures before filing an Article 78. This means that any internal agency appeals, or other available appeals, must be used before going to court. If those procedures are not used, then you lose the right to file an Article 78.
Also, you must usually file the Article 78 proceeding within four months of the final agency determination. This means that once the agency has made its final decision about you, an Article 78 must be filed within four months of the date of that decision. If the final decision is more than four months old, then you may have lost the right to go to court. This is called being "time barred."
As a result, you must consult an attorney as soon as you receive any unfavorable decision from an agency, or as soon as you realize that the agency is refusing to give you a decision. This is so you can find out if any agency appeals must be used, and also to make sure that your Article 78 time deadline is not missed.
PORT AUTHORITY DISQUALIFICATION
Employment disqualifications from city and state agencies in New York routinely are appealed to various civil service commissions. However, disqualifications from public authorities, like the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, are not covered by the Civil Service Law, and so cannot be appealed. This is because the Port Authority is not an agency of either New York or New Jersey, but an entirely separate entity created by agreement between both states.
The Port Authority acts, essentially, like an independent government, and has vast powers normally exercised only by a state. It is for this reason that such public authorities commonly are referred to as "shadow governments," and the laws which apply to city and state agencies often do not apply to authorities. The result is that job disqualifications from the Port Authority ordinarily cannot be successfully challenged. The only exception is perhaps a rare case of civil rights violation, where a Federal lawsuit might be filed.
However, while Port Authority employment disqualifications usually cannot be challenged, the candidate still has a right to obtain the reasons for the disqualification, which are contained in the Authority’s employment investigation file. As example, a candidate disqualified for psychological reasons has a right to obtain a copy of the psychological file. A demand for the file must be made, and if the Authority refuses to release the file, an Article 78 court proceeding can be used to compel release.
Candidates interested in obtaining such files should contact an attorney as soon as the candidate receives notice of a Port Authority disqualification.
NEW YORK GUN & WEAPON ARREST -
HANDGUN ARREST - ASSAULT WEAPON
ARREST - KNIFE ARREST
New York weapon laws are different from most other places, and the gun laws truly are terrifying. Your mere possession of a loaded handgun, with no criminal intent at all, results in a mandatory 5-15 year prison sentence upon conviction. Further, almost every case of unlicensed handgun possession now is a felony offense, including possession in the home which formerly only was a misdemeanor.
This is true also for rifle and shotgun possession, particularly if your gun meets the definition of an "assault weapon." Many rifles and shotguns which are legal most everywhere else are considered assault weapons in New York, and the same mandatory sentence applies as with handguns. Additionally, gun magazines are included in the felony category if they can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
Knives too are criminalized in New York, and the knife statute is so vague that carrying almost any knife is chargeable as a crime. In New York City, your carrying even a simple pocket knife can result in arrest.
If you are unaware, you unknowingly can be ensnared by these laws, and many people traveling with guns at airports and by car are arrested regularly. You would be shocked by the severe penalties, and become even more shocked when facing a prosecutor determined to obtain a jail sentence, even though you were not aware of the law.
Your case will require representation by counsel experienced with New York gun and weapon laws, and who understands every argument that can be raised for you against the government. In many cases, not only can police and prosecution errors be used as a defense, but also technical issues regarding weapon specification. A defense attorney must be skilled in all these areas to give you the greatest advantage. If you are charged with violating the firearm, pistol, rifle, shotgun, assault weapon or knife laws, please contact our office immediately.
NEW YORK ASSAULT WEAPON LAW BOOK
Mr. Levine's latest book, New York Assault Weapon Laws, has been published by LawTech Publications Company and now is available for purchase. The book contains detailed analysis of the New York assault weapon law, various local assault weapon codes, gun-related terminology, and is heavily illustrated with many photographs. It is a must-have resource for persons interested in this very complex and confusing legal subject.
The book can be obtained by contacting Mr. Levine's law office at 212-482-8830, or by mail to the office. The cost is $49.95 which includes tax and shipping. For orders placed by mail, please include name, address, telephone number and email, as well as a check or money order, or the type of credit card with card number and expiration date.
NEW YORK OPMC & OPD ATTORNEY -
MEDICAL & PROFESSIONAL LICENSE
DEFENSE & LICENSE RESTORATION
Professional misconduct proceedings have become an ever-larger area of legal involvement in recent years. With the increased level of regulation in the medical and other professions, it was inevitable that government agencies responsible for overseeing professional conduct would initiate more regulatory actions. The results largely have been unwelcome in the professional community, for while a few dangerous actors have been removed from the scene, others who have engaged in relatively minuscule acts of misconduct---some unintentionally---have had the full weight of the government fall upon them.
It is most important that affected professionals seek guidance without delay from a professional misconduct attorney in any matters involving O.P.M.C. (Office of Professional Medical Conduct) or O.P.D. (Office of Professional Discipline). Misconduct allegations frequently balloon into full-blown investigations, and this activity can be tremendously injurious to the operation of a professional practice. Government investigators rarely are concerned with the business interests of professionals, and will pursue misconduct cases with relentless tenacity. Any who doubt this need only ask a professional who has been the target of such an investigation.
Competent attorneys are available to help medical and other professionals in O.P.M.C. and O.P.D. cases, but they are of use only when consulted, and are of most use when consulted early in the process.
RECENT DECISIONS FROM OATH
The following are summaries of recent decisions of the Administrative Law Judges at the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings.
(Note: These are not cases involving clients of Mr. Levine.)
LICENSING
In a default proceeding, ALJ John W. Burns issued civil penalties of $16,850 against respondent tow truck company and $3,500 against respondent tow truck operator, who was the company's manager. Respondents unlawfully towed a properly parked vehicle from private property, overcharged customers, refused to accept credit cards from three separate customers, unlawfully booted a vehicle, and violated record-keeping, reporting, and licensing requirements. ALJ Burns also ordered $351 in restitution to the complaining consumers, revocation of the tow truck company's license, and a 20-day suspension of the tow truck driver's license. (Dep’t of Consumer Affairs v. Riverdale Towing Associates, Inc., OATH Index No. 1848/17.)
The Taxi and Limousine Commission ("TLC") suspended respondent’s TLC driver’s license following his arrest for unlawfully soliciting ground transportation services at an airport. After a summary suspension hearing, ALJ Ingrid M. Addison recommended that the suspension of respondent’s license pending the outcome of the criminal matter be lifted, finding the evidence insufficient to establish that continuation of respondent’s license during the pendency of the criminal case would render a direct and substantial threat to the public safety, even if the charge were true. ALJ Addison found that the criminal charge pending against respondent was not of the same nature as the non-exhaustive list of 18 enumerated charges in the applicable TLC rule, the commission of which would undoubtedly pose a direct and substantial threat to the public. (Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Crow-Martinez, OATH Index No. 0084/18.)
The Taxi and Limousine Commission charged a licensee with unfitness for testing positive for codeine. ALJ Joycelyn McGeachy-Kuls found that the licensee established the affirmative defense of unknowing ingestion and recommended dismissal of the charge. The licensee, who had a prescription for Percocet, explained that he kept his medication in the same cabinet as his mother’s Tylenol-Codeine and photographs demonstrated the near identical appearance of both the pills and their respective pill bottles. After being notified of the failed drug test, the licensee faxed his prescription for Percocet to Doctors Review Services, knowing that he had taken medication the night before the test and reasonably assuming that Percocet was the controlled substance he tested positive for. ALJ McGeachy-Kuls found that the evidence indicated a very strong likelihood that the licensee unknowingly took his mother’s Tylenol-Codeine instead of his prescribed Percocet. (Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Alexiadis, OATH Index No. 0053/18.)
PERSONNEL
ALJ Addison recommended that respondent, a bridge and tunnel officer, be terminated from his employment after being found guilty of attempting to engage in forcible sexual intercourse with his former girlfriend, and causing her physical injury while doing so. Respondent pled guilty to Assault in the Third Degree, a Class A misdemeanor, was sentenced to a one-year conditional discharge, and a five-year Order of Protection was issued against him. Bridge and tunnel officers are peace officers and ALJ Addison found respondent’s conduct to be contrary to his responsibilities as a peace officer. In addition, respondent failed to promptly notify his employer of his conviction and sentence. (Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth. v. Jones, OATH Index No. 1229/17.)
ALJ Addison recommended a 20-day suspension without pay for a job opportunity specialist who engaged in disrespectful and intimidating behavior. The respondent loudly confronted the director of her work location to complain about her supervisor, used inappropriate and offensive language, and refused to leave the director’s office after she was instructed to do so. On another occasion the respondent snatched a document from, pointed her finger, and yelled at her supervisor. Additionally, petitioner established that respondent failed to follow her supervisor’s instructions on three occasions. (Human Resources Admin. v. Carrington, OATH Index No. 2307/17.)
