June 17

NYPD Psych NOPD 2nd Interview

If you receive a Psychological Notice of Proposed Disqualification (NOPD) from the NYPD you would have 30 days to decide whether you would like to appeal.

If you do not take action most likely this disqualification would affect your chances to be hired by other law enforcement agencies.

The good news is that the NYPD has begun a second psychological interview or an NOPD interview for some candidates that choose to appeal.

This second interview occurs at a different location with a different psychologist from the first NYPD doctor that interviewed you. Based on the initial doctor interview and your expert or MHP – mental health professional’s report this interview with the different NYPD psychologist has been leading to some success of people getting their Psychological Disqualification reversed before having to appeal to the Civil Service Commission. This is good news for candidates as you may succeed by appealing your original NOPD disqualification.

If you’d like to schedule a free consultation at my Mineola office you can contact me at:

Toll-free
(888) 998-99844

Email me: kevin@sheerinlaw.com

You can visit my website www.sheerinlaw.com

Read my blog about Civil Service issues: civilservice.sheerinlaw.com

Facebook: Law_Office_of Kevin_P._Sheerin

Twitter: @DQLawyer

June 16

NYPD Disqualification

Don’t be discouraged by others who have been disqualified. Often candidates become disheartened with the process. Jobs that are a life career can have a lengthy difficult application and investigation process. Law enforcement positions have thorough background, medical and psychological exams.

Nonetheless, do not be discouraged if you are disqualified because candidates before have succeeded in their appeals.

If you have an NYPD disqualification call me at 516-248-3494 or email kevin@sheerinlaw.com

Visit my blog Nypd disqualification blog

March 21

NYC Human Rights Law

NYC Human Rights Law

Matter of Cruz v Schriro, 51 Misc 3d 1203[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50363[U] (Sup Ct, NY County 2016).
• Plaintiff began working with the Department of Corrections and when he was sent to Rikers, to work or for training he would experience allergic reactions on several occasions. For example, On August 7, while attending graduation rehearsal at Rikers, he experienced hives and swelling of his face, and, in order to stay for the rehearsal, he used the Epipen to alleviate his symptoms. Later, on September 14, petitioner underwent a “uvulectomy,” surgery to minimize throat swelling and difficulty breathing during an allergic reaction. He went on approved sick leave until his employment was terminated. He asked to be accommodated but the Health Management Division refused to consider it. He then was fired for having over 50 absences, due to dermatology.
• The court found that petitioner sufficiently alleged, and presented sufficient evidence, including medical documentation, to show that his hives and other allergic reactions, even if their etiology is uncertain, represent a physical impairment and/or a record of a physical impairment falling within the NYCHRL’s broad definition of disability.
• The next issue was whether the DOC failed to reasonably accommodate plaintiff or their lack of was due to it causing an undue hardship. The court held absent any response to petitioner’s request and any effort to engage with petitioner in any process to explore or consider what other possible accommodations could be made, either at Rikers or elsewhere within its system, respondents fail to establish that there was no feasible accommodation that they could provide.
• Finally, that the Court directed for a trial on the issues of whether respondents violated the New York City Human Rights Law by failing to reasonably accommodate petitioner’s disability and by terminating his employment, etc.