FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Complaint alleges race and national-origin discrimination, retaliation, flawed disciplinary adjudication, and negligent drug-testing practices involving Psychemedics

NEW YORK, N.Y. — May 18, 2026 — Eric Sanders, Esq., of The Sanders Firm, P.C. announced today the filing of a Verified Complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, on behalf of former NYPD Detective Frankie F. Palaguachi, a Hispanic male officer whose NYPD career was allegedly ended after the Department relied on a disputed marijuana hair-test result.

The action is brought against THE CITY OF NEW YORK, JESSICA S. TISCH, VANESSA FACIO-LINCE, DANIEL E. MAURER, JOSEPH J. CIUFFO, DANNY TSE, PSYCHEMEDICS CORPORATION, and RYAN B. PAULSEN.

The Verified Complaint alleges that the NYPD converted a contested hair-test result into career-ending discipline without the legal, scientific, procedural, and anti-discrimination safeguards required by law. According to the pleading, Palaguachi denied marijuana use under oath, submitted multiple independent negative drug tests, passed a polygraph examination, obtained a negative toenail test, requested DNA verification of the original hair sample, and challenged the Department’s alleged random-selection process, chain of custody, testing methodology, and lack of validation.

Despite those challenges, the Complaint alleges that the NYPD suspended Palaguachi, denied his scheduled promotion to Sergeant, demoted him from Detective to Police Officer, prosecuted him administratively, obtained a guilty finding, and terminated him from the Police Department City of New York.

“This case is not simply about one disputed test result,” said attorney Eric Sanders, founder and president of The Sanders Firm, P.C. “It is about whether a public employer may use a scientifically disputed, racially vulnerable, and inadequately validated testing system to end a police officer’s career while ignoring exculpatory evidence, refusing meaningful sample verification, and shifting the burden onto the employee.”

The Verified Complaint asserts claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law for race and national-origin discrimination and retaliation. It also asserts New York common-law claims against PSYCHEMEDICS CORPORATION and RYAN B. PAULSEN for negligent testing, negligent reporting, negligent interpretation, and negligent overstatement under the principles recognized in Landon v. Kroll Laboratory Specialists, Inc., 22 N.Y.3d 1 (2013).

According to the Complaint, Palaguachi was directed to report for what the Department characterized as a random drug test on February 22, 2024. The pleading alleges that he was not provided reliable documentation establishing that his selection was generated through a neutral, validated, and auditable random-selection process. During the collection process, hair was taken from his legs and arms. Those samples were then processed through the NYPD Medical Division and tested by PSYCHEMEDICS CORPORATION.

The Complaint alleges that after Palaguachi learned of the positive marijuana result, he obtained several independent tests that came back negative. Those tests included body-hair testing, head-hair testing, urine testing, and toenail testing. He also passed a polygraph examination. The pleading alleges that these independent results supported his sworn denial of marijuana use and should have triggered meaningful review, sample verification, and scientific scrutiny before any career-ending discipline was imposed.

Instead, the Complaint alleges, the NYPD continued to rely on the disputed PSYCHEMEDICS result while rejecting or disregarding exculpatory evidence. Palaguachi also requested deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA, testing of the original hair sample to verify whether the hair attributed to him was actually his. The Complaint alleges that defendants did not honor that request. Shortly after the DNA request, Palaguachi was demoted from Detective to Police Officer.

The lawsuit also challenges the broader structure of the NYPD’s drug-testing program. The Complaint alleges that hair testing is a racially sensitive and scientifically disputed method because hair color, hair texture, melanin concentration, environmental contamination, passive exposure, collection site, washing protocols, laboratory thresholds, and interpretation standards can affect results. The Complaint further alleges that these issues are particularly significant in marijuana testing because hair testing may not reliably distinguish knowing ingestion from passive exposure, environmental transfer, or surface contamination without rigorous and validated safeguards.

The Verified Complaint alleges that the NYPD used hair testing as an employment-selection and disciplinary device without adequately validating the process under the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, without meaningful adverse-impact review, without adequate self-auditing, and without sufficient proof that the process was job-related and consistent with business necessity for NYPD employment decisions.

The pleading also relies on prior litigation involving PSYCHEMEDICS hair testing in Boston. The Complaint alleges that the Boston Police hair-testing litigation placed PSYCHEMEDICS and public employers on notice that hair-testing methodology could raise serious concerns involving racial disparate impact, contamination risk, proof of ingestion, validation, business necessity, and less discriminatory alternatives. According to the Complaint, the Department failed to meaningfully address those concerns before using the disputed result to end Palaguachi’s career.

The Complaint further alleges that the NYPD’s disciplinary process did not cure the defects in the underlying test, but ratified them. Palaguachi challenged the admissibility, reliability, and legality of the PSYCHEMEDICS-derived evidence through motion practice, trial objections, public-record submissions, legal authorities, and Fogel comments. The Complaint alleges that defendant VANESSA FACIO-LINCE, who presided over the disciplinary proceeding, misapplied evidentiary rules, misunderstood the distinction between judicial notice, admissibility, legal authority, public filings, and expert proof, shifted the burden from the Department to Palaguachi, credited the disputed PSYCHEMEDICS-derived evidence, and recommended dismissal.

The Complaint alleges that defendant JESSICA S. TISCH then approved, adopted, ratified, or maintained the final termination without meaningfully correcting those alleged legal, evidentiary, scientific, procedural, and anti-discrimination defects.

The claims against PSYCHEMEDICS CORPORATION and PAULSEN are grounded in their alleged role in testing, reporting, interpreting, defending, and supporting the disputed result. The Complaint alleges that PSYCHEMEDICS was not a passive vendor. Rather, it allegedly performed the testing, applied or defended the cutoff thresholds, generated the laboratory result, maintained or failed to maintain critical documentation, and supplied the evidentiary foundation used by the NYPD to impose severe employment consequences. PAULSEN, identified as Vice President of Laboratory Operations, allegedly defended PSYCHEMEDICS’ methodology, laboratory practices, and reported result in connection with the disciplinary process.

“The City and its officials had repeated opportunities to correct course,” Sanders said. “The Complaint alleges that they instead doubled down on a disputed result, disregarded independent negative evidence, and allowed the disciplinary process to become a mechanism of ratification rather than review. We intend to pursue full legal and equitable relief, including reinstatement, restoration of title, back pay, benefits, promotional relief, damages, attorneys’ fees, and all other relief available under law.”

The lawsuit seeks compensatory, economic, emotional-distress, consequential, punitive, declaratory, injunctive, statutory, and common-law relief to the fullest extent permitted by law.

The allegations in the Verified Complaint are allegations. Defendants have not yet answered, and liability will be determined by the Court or jury.

About The Sanders Firm, P.C.

The Sanders Firm, P.C. is a New York-based law firm focused on civil rights, immigration, employment discrimination, police misconduct, and other high-stakes matters. Its founder and president, Eric Sanders, Esq., is a retired NYPD officer who brings a rare inside perspective to the intersection of government power, public institutions, enforcement discretion, and constitutional accountability.

For more than twenty years, Sanders has counseled thousands of clients and handled complex matters involving police use of force, sexual harassment, retaliation, systemic discrimination, immigration consequences, and related civil-rights violations. He is widely recognized as a leading New York civil-rights attorney and a prominent voice on evidence-based policing, institutional accountability, equal justice, and rights-based immigration advocacy.

Media Contact