October 27

NYPD Disqualification Appeals

Matter of State Div. of Human Rights on Complaint of Granelle, 70 N.Y.2d 100, 103, 510 N.E.2d 799 (1987).

In this case, Mr. Granelle was disqualified from employment as a NYPD Police Officer because of an asymptomatic back condition known as spondylolisthesis. The State Division of Human Rights found in his favor, but the Appellate Division dismissed his complaint. But the Court of Appeals reversed and held for Mr. Granelle.

The Division conducted an investigation and had a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. During the hearing Mr. Granelle testified about his employment history, which consisted mostly of heavy lifting such as working in the construction industry, laborer, and as a truck driver. But he stated that he never had any back problems that interfered with his jobs. He also introduced evidence from his personal physician who testified that this condition if present in about 10% of the general population and that this condition would not limit Mr. Granelle. The City used the testimony of an appeals examiner that did not conduct an examination of Mr. Granelle but opined that there was a great likelihood of low back disability in the future, but gave no reliable statics regarding this. Mr. Granelle was examined by an independent orthopedist who reported that his strength was normal.

The standard of review for the Court of Appeals is “when a rational basis for the conclusion adopted by the Commissioner is found, the judicial function is exhausted and is limited to determining whether the Commissioner’s finding of employment discrimination in this case is supported by substantial evidence in the record.” The court found that Mr. Granelle indeed suffers from a disability within the law. Under the statute there is an ”individualized standard“ such that the employer must demonstrate that the disability is such as would ”prevent the complainant from performing in a reasonable manner the activities involved in the job or occupation sought“, failing which, the disability may not be the basis for rejecting the applicant. The court reasoned that the City failed to show evidence that Granelle isn’t able to presently perform the tasks needed. The City argued that there was a high possibility that he would be unable to perform the needed tasks in the future but there was no reliable statistics. Ultimately the court held, “employment may not be denied based on speculation and mere possibilities, especially when such determination is premised solely on the fact of an applicant’s inclusion in a class of persons with a particular disability rather than upon an individualized assessment of the specific individual.”

If you have questions about your appeal and would like to schedule a free consultation at my Mineola office please do not hesitate to call me at 516 248 0040.

Email me: kevin@sheerinlaw.com

For more NYPD Disqualification information visit my website: www.sheerinlaw.com

Appealing a New York Civil Service job disqualification

Appealing a New York Civil Service job disqualification

October 27

NYPD Psychological Disqualification Appeal

There is a two step appeal process. The first appeal is to the NYPD who will review the appeal package you submit. In the case of psychological disqualifications you may get a second psych interview.

We are here to assist you if you receive a NYPD disqualification. Call (516) 248-0040 or email: kevin@sheerinlaw.com

If you receive a second psych interview it is best to prepare with an expert. The main issues that will come up in the second psych interview are obvious. The next step in the appeal process would be a Notice of Disqualification which would be appealed to the NYC Civil Service Commission. The Commission holds hearings to determine if your disqualification was improper.

When you are disqualified, that disqualification will NOT be reversed unless you choose to take action. I have been assisting disqualified NYPD, FDNY, DSNY, NYC DOC candidates for 18 years.

Each appeal is different as your history of school, work and personal relationships is different.

I offer a free ZOOM, phone or in-person consultation.
Feel free to call me. I would be happy to speak with you to see if I can help you with your appeal.

Call 516-248-0040 or email me at kevin@sheerinlaw.com

October 27

NYPD Disqualification -Notice of Proposed Disqualification – NOPD


The first notice you will receive when you are NYPD disqualified is a Notice of Proposed Disqualification or NOPD.  You will have 30 days to respond to this NOPD.  It is recommended that you consult with an attorney to protect your rights and make the most compelling arguments to increase your chances to get a reversal of your NYPD disqualification.

I am a successful civil service attorney with 18  years of experience.  I have many clients who are currently working as NYPD Police Officers because I helped them win their disqualification appeal.

If you have questions about your disqualification and would like to schedule a free consultation at my Mineola office please do not hesitate to call me at 516 248 0040.

Email me: kevin@sheerinlaw.com

Visit my website: www.sheerinlaw.com

October 26

NYPD Disqualification – “Omission of Pertinent Facts”

Sheerin Law Logo

If you want to be successful in being hired for a New York Civil Service job, especially Law Enforcement jobs such as NYPD you have to gather all accurate data before filling out your investigation paperwork.

The best policy is to go to the Clerk of the Court in any county in which you were arrested or received a summons and get a Certificate of Disposition.

You should also get a LIFETIME driver’s abstract from the NYS Department of Motor Vehicles. Go to the DMV website for instructions on how to do this and give yourself a couple of weeks to receive the document.

In addition, get all of your school and work discipline records.

Failure to accurately record any of this information on your APD5 will not be excused by the hiring agency, and you will receive a disqualification notice with OMISSION OF PERTINENT FACTS checked off.

Click on the link below to hear further details regarding “Omission of Pertinent Facts”.


If you have questions about Omission of Pertinent Facts, feel free to call me at 516 248 0040.

Email me: kevin@sheerinlaw.com

Visit my website: www.sheerinlaw.com

October 14

Appeal of NYPD disqualification/Civil Service Disqualification

NYPD

Daubman v Nassau County Civ. Serv. Commn., 195 AD2d 602 (2nd Dept 1993).
• The applicant, a police officer, applied for a position with the police department and passed the requisite examinations. The commission determined that the applicant was disqualified from eligibility based on an X-ray that revealed the presence of a back condition. The commission’s physician speculated that the condition could render the applicant more susceptible to a serious disability if he suffered a future back injury.
• The court held that the commission unlawfully discriminated against the applicant based on his mere membership in a class of persons with the same condition instead of on an individualized assessment of his particular abilities.
• The court held that the determination was arbitrary and capricious because it was premised upon speculation regarding possible future disability rather than fact or concrete medical evidence that the applicant was rendered unfit to perform his duties as a result of his condition.
• On appeal, the court granted the applicant’s petition, annulled the determination of the commission, and reinstated the applicant to the status of an eligible candidate for the position of police officer with the county.
• The court stated that there was no showing petitioner’s condition rendered him incapable of performing in reasonable manner activities involved in being a police officer. Furthermore, the court held that the Commission’s determination was premised solely upon speculation regarding possible future disability, and the record contains no concrete medical evidence demonstrating petitioner would likely be rendered unfit to perform police duties in the future as a consequence of his condition. Most importantly, the court decided that the Commission’s determination was arbitrary and capricious because it was premised upon speculation rather than fact.

Read about this Civil Service Disqualification case here.

Visit civilservice.sheerinlaw.com

Appealing a New York Civil Service job disqualification

Appealing a New York Civil Service job disqualification

for more information about Civil Service Disqualification Cases.

NEWER OLDER 1 2 4 5