For Immediate Release
Department Re-Imposed an Unvalidated 1.5-Mile Run After DCJS Approved the Job Standard Test, Coerced “Voluntary” Resignations, and Triggered State and Federal Civil-Rights Exposure
New York, NY — The Sanders Firm, P.C., through civil-rights attorney Eric Sanders, Esq., announced today that it has served and is publicly releasing a formal demand to Police Commissioner Jessica S. Tisch seeking immediate reinstatement of NYPD recruits who were pushed out of the Police Academy after being subjected to an unauthorized and unvalidated 1.5-mile endurance run.
Editor’s Note / Key Points:
- The NYPD allegedly re-imposed a legally obsolete 1.5-mile endurance run after DCJS approved a job-simulation test as the Department’s sole fitness standard.
- Recruits were allegedly coerced into “voluntary” resignations through termination threats.
- The practice allegedly had a disproportionate impact on Black, Hispanic, and female recruits.
- The conduct is alleged to expose the City to liability under state administrative law, Title VII, UGESP, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The demand letter—served via certified mail and email—asserts that the NYPD’s only approved physical-fitness standard is the DCJS-approved Job Standard Test (“JST”), adopted pursuant to 9 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 6000 following the Professional Policing Act of 2021. The demand further alleges that, notwithstanding DCJS approval of the JST, academy personnel re-imposed the 1.5-mile run as a de facto graduation and retention criterion, and then coerced resignations by threatening termination and permanent disqualification from City employment.
“This is not a debate about whether policing is demanding,” Sanders said. “It is. The question is whether a government agency may resurrect a legally obsolete test, use it as an unofficial gatekeeping tool, and then launder the outcome through ‘voluntary resignations.’ Under New York’s post-Professional Policing Act framework and under federal validation standards, it cannot.”
The demand was copied to oversight entities, including the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services (“DCJS”) and Municipal Police Training Council (“MPTC”), the New York City Council Committee on Public Safety, the New York City Commission on Human Rights, and the Office of the New York State Attorney General.
What the Demand Alleges: A Coercive Separation Pipeline
The demand alleges a consistent pattern: recruits were required to complete, and be timed on, a 1.5-mile run that was not the DCJS-approved standard for the NYPD. Recruits who struggled, fell short of time targets, or questioned the legitimacy of the run were allegedly subjected to escalating pressure—culminating in a “resign or be terminated” ultimatum. The demand characterizes these separations as constructive discharge: the creation of unlawful conditions designed to force separation without due process while preserving the Department’s preferred narrative that the recruits “chose” to leave.
The demand also describes weight-based humiliation and coercive “body modification” directives that were not tied to any DCJS-approved protocol. Allegations include public ridicule based on body type, directives to lose weight, and “meal plan” mandates imposed by academy personnel without medical basis or job-task validation. The demand asserts these practices created a discriminatory and hostile training environment.
While the demand states the practices affected recruits across demographics, it emphasizes that the predictable disparate impact fell heavily on Black, Hispanic, and female recruits—an outcome consistent with longstanding federal precedent requiring rigorous validation before an employer relies on endurance screens that exclude protected groups.
State Law: The Professional Policing Act and 9 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 6000
The demand’s state-law core is straightforward. The Professional Policing Act of 2021 centralized authority for police hiring, training, and certification standards within DCJS and the MPTC, implemented through amendments to Executive Law §§ 839 and 840. Under that authority, 9 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 6000 establishes statewide standards governing police training and certification, including physical-fitness assessments and the conditions under which alternatives may be used.
The demand asserts that the NYPD lawfully developed, validated, and obtained DCJS approval for the JST—an obstacle-based, job-simulation test designed to measure essential patrol-related functions. Once DCJS approved the JST, the demand argues, the 1.5-mile run lost legal force for NYPD purposes as a disqualifying or retention device. Any subsequent use of the run—whether labeled “conditioning,” “benchmarking,” or “informal evaluation”—is alleged to be ultra vires and void.
“This is basic administrative law,” Sanders said. “Once the JST was approved, the Department cannot treat the old endurance run as a back-door requirement. If the agency’s standard is the JST, then the JST is the standard—full stop.”
Federal Law: Title VII, UGESP, and the Validation Mandate
The demand asserts that the same conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (“UGESP”), 29 C.F.R. Part 1607. Under UGESP, where a selection procedure produces adverse impact, the employer must demonstrate that the procedure is job-related and consistent with business necessity through professionally acceptable validation methods.
The demand contends the NYPD has not produced an acceptable validation study demonstrating that performance on a timed 1.5-mile run predicts successful performance of essential police duties, academy completion, or field proficiency. By contrast, the JST was specifically created to satisfy job-relatedness requirements through job-task simulation. The demand cites Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), for the governing principle that employment practices “fair in form but discriminatory in operation” are unlawful absent business necessity.
The demand further cites Pietras v. Board of Fire Commissioners, 180 F.3d 468 (2d Cir. 1999), for the Second Circuit’s treatment of timed endurance screens where the employer cannot supply acceptable validation linking the test to actual job duties. It references additional federal authority—including Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977)—for the proposition that generalized assumptions about strength, stamina, or body size cannot substitute for empirical proof of job-relatedness where the effect is discriminatory exclusion.
“Validation is not a talking point,” Sanders said. “Under UGESP, validation is a legal prerequisite. When an employer chooses an endurance screen, it assumes the burden of proving job-relatedness, not merely asserting it.”
Section 1983 and Monell: Municipal Policy, Custom, and Deliberate Indifference
Because the NYPD is a municipal agency, the demand also asserts parallel claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), the City may be liable when an official policy, practice, or custom causes the deprivation of federal rights.
The demand’s theory is that the endurance-run regime and the coerced resignation pipeline operated as a de facto policy: repeated across recruits, tolerated by supervisory staff, and sustained through institutional indifference despite clear notice of the governing DCJS-approved standard. The demand cites Second Circuit authority recognizing that municipal inaction in the face of known illegality can satisfy Monell’s “policy or custom” element, including Cash v. County of Erie, 654 F.3d 324 (2d Cir. 2011) and Lucente v. County of Suffolk, 980 F.3d 284 (2d Cir. 2020), and further references Chislett v. New York City Department of Education, 157 F.4th 172 (2d Cir. 2025) on deliberate indifference and constructive acquiescence where senior officials allow recurring statutory violations to persist.
Retaliation and Hostile Environment: The Human Impact
Beyond the testing itself, the demand alleges retaliation and hostile-environment conditions. Recruits who questioned the legality of the 1.5-mile run, challenged whether it was required for graduation, or resisted humiliating weight-based directives were allegedly met with threats, ridicule, and escalated pressure to resign.
The demand relies on Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006), for the standard that retaliation encompasses employer actions that might deter a reasonable person from engaging in protected activity, and on Hicks v. Baines, 593 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2010), for the proposition that retaliatory intimidation and threats can be materially adverse even absent formal discipline. The demand further references Knox v. CRC Management Co., LLC, 2025 WL 1057862 (2d Cir. 2025) as reinforcing the Second Circuit retaliation framework.
Separately, the demand asserts state and local human-rights claims under the post-2019 New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), including Executive Law § 296, and the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), including Administrative Code § 8-107. The demand cites Golston-Green v. City of New York, 184 A.D.3d 24 (2d Dep’t 2020) and Doe v. Bloomberg L.P., 36 N.Y.3d 450 (2021) for the NYSHRL’s liberal construction, and Williams v. NYC Housing Authority, 61 A.D.3d 62 (1st Dep’t 2009) and Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux N.A., Inc., 715 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2013) for the NYCHRL’s independent, broader mandate.
The Relief Demanded: Reinstatement, Back Pay, Record Correction, and Oversight
The demand seeks immediate remedial action, including:
Immediate reinstatement of all affected recruits with full back pay, benefits, and restoration of seniority, together with scheduling of graduation and field-training assignment as if uninterrupted;
Expungement of resignation records and any personnel entries referencing “voluntary separation,” “failure to meet physical standards,” or similar language predicated on the unauthorized endurance run;
Formal rescission of the 1.5-mile run requirement and issuance of a department-wide directive reaffirming the JST as the sole DCJS/MPTC-approved standard for NYPD recruits;
Remedial training for academy personnel on validated-testing requirements, retaliation prohibitions, and anti-discrimination compliance; and
Referral to DCJS/MPTC and the New York City Commission on Human Rights for monitoring, compliance assurance, and review of any future conditioning protocols.
The demand provides a ten (10) day window for voluntary corrective action. Absent compliance, the demand states the recruits will pursue Article 78 proceedings and civil-rights litigation under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL, seeking reinstatement, compensatory and punitive damages where available, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief to prohibit further use of the endurance run and related coercive practices.
Why This Matters: Public Safety Requires Lawful Standards
The letter emphasized that the issue is not “lowering standards,” but enforcing lawful, validated ones. The demand argues that public safety is advanced—not undermined—when policing standards are job-related, empirically justified, and consistently applied.
“When a department substitutes improvisation for validation, it does two things at once: it violates the law and it degrades legitimacy,” Sanders said. “You cannot build public trust on a training pipeline that ignores the rules governing who gets to serve.”
Sanders added that transparency is essential where a public employer uses the academy process to impose unofficial screens that are not grounded in the approved standard. “The public deserves to see the record, the rules, and the difference between a validated test and an improvised one,” he said.
Invitation to Affected Recruits and Media
Recruits who believe they were required to run the 1.5-mile as a graduation or retention condition, pressured to resign after “failing” that run, or subjected to weight-based humiliation are encouraged to preserve relevant documents, including academy communications, schedules, timing sheets, exit interview materials, and any text or email directives.
Below, interested members of the media and public may download a copy of the demand letter for review. Interviews may be available upon request.
About The Sanders Firm, P.C.
Founded by civil-rights attorney Eric Sanders, The Sanders Firm, P.C. is a New York–based law firm concentrating on civil-rights, employment, and police-accountability litigation. The firm is known for handling complex cases involving racial discrimination, due-process violations, and institutional abuse of power, particularly where government actions undermine constitutional and civil-service protections.
###
Read the Demand Letter