I. Introduction
Every police agency in New York State — whether the NYPD, New York State Police, Port Authority Police, MTA Police, SUNY Police, a county sheriff’s office, or a local municipal department — requires psychological screening as part of the hiring process. These evaluations are also used in other contexts, such as return-to-duty determinations or specialized assignment screenings. They carry extraordinary weight. A single report branding a candidate “psychologically unfit” can end a career before it begins or derail the trajectory of a serving officer.
The law, however, is unambiguous: psychological evaluations in New York must be conducted by licensed psychologists. This mandate flows from three sources:
New York Education Law Article 153, which criminalizes the unlicensed practice of psychology and protects the title “psychologist”;
The Professional Policing Act of 2021 (PPA), which codified that all police candidate evaluations must be performed by psychologists duly licensed under Article 153; and
The Municipal Police Training Council (MPTC) standards, which have long required licensure even before the PPA’s enactment.
Yet in practice, agencies across the state have repeatedly allowed — and in some cases institutionalized — the use of unlicensed individuals to conduct or heavily influence these evaluations. The problem is not confined to the NYPD, though its scale makes it the most visible. The issue extends statewide, affecting any applicant or officer subject to an unlawful evaluation.
The consequences differ depending on whether you are an applicant or an incumbent officer. For applicants, the damage is often greater: an unlawful evaluation not only blocks entry into one agency, but can also brand the individual as “psychologically unfit,” effectively closing the door to law enforcement employment statewide and chilling opportunities in other civil service positions. For incumbents, unlawful evaluations can lead to suspensions, restricted duty, or termination — serious outcomes, but sometimes with internal appeal or union protections. In both cases, the harm is significant and legally actionable.
There is also a federal dimension. Under the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), 29 C.F.R. Part 1607, psychological evaluations are considered selection devices. That means agencies must validate them through job analysis, monitor their adverse impact across race, gender, and other protected categories, and demonstrate that no less-discriminatory alternative exists. Where unlicensed or unvalidated evaluations are used, agencies not only violate state law but also expose themselves to liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).
This blog is a practical guide. It will explain the law in detail, show how these rules apply to all police agencies in New York State, and provide a step-by-step plan for candidates and officers to protect their rights. Most importantly, it includes a sample complaint letter you can adapt and file with the New York State Education Department (NYSED) to initiate accountability.
II. The Law: Education Law, the Professional Policing Act, and MPTC Standards
1. Education Law — The Foundation of Licensure
New York State regulates the practice of psychology under Article 153 of the Education Law. These statutes define who may lawfully evaluate, diagnose, and render judgments on psychological fitness. The framework is deliberately strict, because psychological determinations carry life-altering consequences.
§ 7601-a(1)–(2): Defines the practice of psychology broadly to include “observation, evaluation, and modification of behavior” as well as “diagnosis and treatment of mental, nervous, emotional, cognitive, or behavioral disorders.” A pre-employment or fitness-for-duty psychological screening falls squarely within this statutory definition.
§ 7605: Establishes limited permit exceptions. Only individuals who have completed their doctoral program (including dissertation) may receive a one-year permit, renewable up to three years, and then only under the direct supervision of a licensed psychologist. Out-of-state licensees newly arriving in New York may also be granted permits, again with supervision. At no point does the law allow unsupervised, independent practice.
§ 6512: Criminalizes the unauthorized practice of any licensed profession, including psychology. Engaging in practice without a license or valid permit is a Class E felony. Institutions or individuals who aid and abet unlicensed practice can be charged as well.
§ 6513: Protects the title “psychologist.” Unlicensed individuals cannot hold themselves out as psychologists or perform acts reserved to licensed psychologists. Misuse of the title by three or more individuals, with employer knowledge, escalates to a Class E felony.
These provisions establish an unmistakable floor: no person may perform or present themselves as a psychologist without licensure or a valid limited permit under supervision. Any psychological evaluation performed in violation of these provisions is unlawful.
2. The Professional Policing Act of 2021 — Closing the Door on Loopholes
In 2021, the Legislature enacted the Professional Policing Act (PPA), codifying a requirement long implicit in state law: all psychological evaluations of police applicants must be performed by psychologists duly licensed under Article 153 of the Education Law.
The PPA was designed to standardize professional requirements across police agencies statewide, ensuring that every applicant is evaluated by a qualified professional. It eliminated any space for agencies to argue ambiguity. The statute does not create new exemptions; rather, it reinforces the existing Education Law framework and applies it directly to police employment.
The effect is sweeping. From the NYPD to the smallest town department, from the State Police to SUNY Police, no agency may lawfully base hiring decisions on an evaluation conducted by someone lacking a license. This means that any applicant disqualified by an unlicensed evaluator — or by a later licensed psychologist who relied on unlicensed reports — has been harmed by a violation of state law.
3. MPTC Standards — Longstanding Compliance Requirements
Even before the PPA, the Municipal Police Training Council (MPTC) set standards for the psychological screening of police officers. These standards required agencies to use licensed psychologists for applicant evaluations, recognizing the sensitive and consequential nature of these assessments.
In other words, the rule was always there. The PPA simply codified into state law what the MPTC had long required in administrative guidance: only licensed professionals may conduct psychological screenings of police applicants. Agencies that failed to comply before 2021 were already out of step with the governing standards. After the PPA, their noncompliance became indisputable statutory violation.
4. Why This Legal Framework Matters
When agencies allow unlicensed individuals to conduct evaluations, or when licensed evaluators base their determinations on prior unlawful reports, the result is twofold:
The evaluation itself is illegal under state law. No amount of institutional practice or internal policy can override the Legislature’s licensing mandate.
The decision-making process is fatally tainted. Disqualifications or duty restrictions rooted in unlawful evaluations are subject to challenge, both administratively (through the New York State Education Department) and judicially (through Article 78 proceedings or civil-rights litigation).
This legal framework is not a technicality. It is the foundation for ensuring that psychological screenings are legitimate, professional, and fair. Violations undermine not only individual rights but the integrity of policing as a whole.
III. UGESP and Federal Compliance: Psychological Exams as “Selection Procedures”
1. What UGESP Is and Why It Applies
In 1978, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), U.S. Department of Labor, Department of Justice, and the Civil Service Commission jointly adopted the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP). Codified at 29 C.F.R. Part 1607, UGESP provides the framework for determining whether employment selection devices — such as tests, interviews, and psychological screenings — comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
UGESP treats any mechanism that affects who is hired, retained, promoted, or discharged as a selection procedure. That includes psychological evaluations. When a police agency uses a psych exam to disqualify applicants or restrict incumbent officers, it is deploying a selection procedure with direct civil-rights consequences.
2. The Core UGESP Requirements
UGESP imposes three fundamental obligations on employers, including public employers such as police agencies:
Adverse Impact Monitoring. Employers must track the racial, gender, and ethnic impact of each selection procedure. If any protected group’s pass rate falls below 80% (the four-fifths rule) of the highest-scoring group, the employer must investigate adverse impact.
Validation. If adverse impact exists — or if a procedure is challenged — the employer must prove the procedure is job-related and consistent with business necessity. Validation can take three forms:
Content validation: Showing the exam measures knowledge, skills, or abilities directly tied to essential job functions.
Construct validation: Demonstrating that the psychological traits measured (e.g., stress tolerance, judgment, impulse control) are scientifically linked to successful performance as a police officer.
Criterion-related validation: Establishing a statistical correlation between exam results and actual job performance outcomes.
Less Discriminatory Alternatives. Even if validated, an employer must adopt any available alternative procedure with equal predictive validity but less discriminatory impact.
These requirements apply to every police agency in New York State. No department — not the NYPD, not the State Police, not a small town’s force — is exempt.
3. Where Licensing and UGESP Intersect
Licensure under Education Law and the PPA is the state-law floor. UGESP is the federal overlay. When an evaluation is performed by an unlicensed individual, two defects arise simultaneously:
State-law illegality. The evaluation violates Article 153 and the PPA because the evaluator lacked lawful authority to practice psychology.
Federal invalidity. An exam conducted by an unqualified person cannot satisfy UGESP’s validation requirements. An “evaluation” is not job-related or reliable if it is rendered by someone who is not legally permitted to practice.
The harm is magnified when later licensed psychologists rely on prior unlawful reports. Under UGESP, reliance on tainted data does not cure the defect; it compounds it, because the entire selection procedure rests on an invalid foundation.
4. Why This Creates Title VII Liability
Courts applying Title VII have consistently held that selection devices with disparate impact are unlawful unless they are validated as job-related and consistent with business necessity. The Supreme Court has built this principle over a trilogy of key cases:
In Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), the Court held that facially neutral tests that disproportionately excluded Black employees were unlawful unless the employer could prove that the tests were directly related to job performance. This case established the disparate impact doctrine.
In Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (1975), the Court reinforced Griggs by holding that an employer’s validation study must be scientifically sound and closely tied to actual job requirements. Albemarle rejected superficial or post-hoc justifications, making clear that validation must be rigorous and contemporaneous.
In Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009), the Court addressed the flip side — employers cannot discard or manipulate test results simply because they fear disparate impact liability. Instead, the obligation is to design and validate selection devices properly from the outset, ensuring they are both job-related and fair.
Taken together, these precedents form the bedrock of federal selection law: employers must create, validate, and administer selection procedures in ways that withstand scrutiny under both Title VII and UGESP.
If a police agency cannot produce:
Candidate-flow data demonstrating no adverse impact by race, gender, or ethnicity, or
A validation study proving that its psychological evaluations predict actual performance as a police officer,
then its process is exposed to challenge. Where the evaluations were also conducted by unlicensed individuals, the defect is compounded: the employer faces both state-law criminal exposure under Education Law and federal civil-rights liability under Title VII.
Moreover, UGESP requires that validation be ongoing. Employers must periodically revalidate selection procedures to ensure they remain predictive, relevant, and non-discriminatory. An agency cannot rely indefinitely on an outdated study, nor can it “borrow” validation from another employer without showing that the jobs, applicant pools, and use conditions are substantially similar. This means every police agency in New York — large or small — has an affirmative duty not only to validate its psychological exams once, but to monitor them continuously for disparate impact and update validation as conditions evolve. Failure to do so compounds the legal exposure and reinforces the unlawfulness of the screening regime.
5. The Civil-Rights Overlay: NYSHRL and NYCHRL
At the state and city level, the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) expand protections even further. The NYCHRL in particular is construed liberally, prohibiting practices that “tend to exclude” candidates based on protected traits. This means that even where UGESP’s 80% rule is not triggered, a psychological screening device with differential effects may still be unlawful under city law.
6. The Bottom Line
UGESP ensures that psychological evaluations cannot be used as black-box eliminators. Agencies must:
Use licensed professionals (state law requirement),
Validate the exam scientifically (federal requirement),
Monitor impact by race, gender, and ethnicity (federal requirement), and
Adopt alternatives where less discriminatory methods exist.
Agencies that ignore these mandates invite dual liability: criminal violations under New York Education Law and civil-rights exposure under Title VII, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL.
IV. Why Applicants Face Greater Harm
Psychological screening is not a minor procedural step. It is a gatekeeper that decides who gets to enter or remain in law enforcement. Both applicants and incumbent officers are harmed when evaluations are conducted unlawfully, but the nature and magnitude of those harms differ.
1. The Applicant’s Burden: A Lifetime of Lost Opportunity
When an applicant is disqualified based on an unlawful psychological evaluation, the consequences are profound:
Permanent stigma. A finding of “psychological unfitness” often becomes part of the applicant’s file and is shared across agencies. This label can follow them into future applications, effectively blacklisting them from police employment statewide.
Career foreclosure. Unlike incumbents, applicants have no foothold in the profession. A disqualification prevents them not only from joining one agency but from accessing the entire law enforcement career path.
Lost earnings and benefits. The financial damages compound over time. A disqualified applicant may lose decades of wages, overtime, pension contributions, and health benefits. Courts recognize this as significant, quantifiable harm.
Civil-service collateral damage. The stigma can spill into other public employment opportunities. Agencies outside policing may also hesitate to hire candidates once they have been labeled “psychologically unfit.”
This is why applicant claims are often the most compelling in terms of damages. A single unlawful evaluation can erase an entire career trajectory.
2. The Incumbent’s Burden: Immediate Career Disruption
For officers already serving, unlawful evaluations take a different form:
Restricted duty. Officers may be stripped of firearms, transferred, or placed on administrative or modified duty.
Suspension or termination. Some face outright discharge based on psychological findings.
Reputational harm. Within the department, being referred for a psychological exam often carries stigma that can stall promotions or damage credibility with peers and supervisors.
These harms are serious and actionable. But unlike applicants, incumbents may have collective bargaining agreements, grievance procedures, or statutory due-process rights that give them internal avenues for challenge.
3. Why Applicants’ Claims Are Especially Viable
From a legal and damages perspective, applicants generally sustain more significant losses than incumbents:
Broader timeframe of loss. Applicants can claim decades of lost earnings and benefits, whereas incumbents may be limited to the period from their removal to reinstatement or retirement.
Less institutional recourse. Applicants lack the union protections and grievance processes available to incumbents. Their only path is external — through NYSED complaints, EEOC charges, and litigation.
Systemic impact. Patterns of applicant disqualifications often reveal disparate impact under UGESP. Because applicant pools are large and diverse, the statistical evidence of exclusion by race, gender, or ethnicity is often more robust than in incumbent cases.
For these reasons, applicant cases are not only viable — they may be the most powerful vehicle for forcing systemic reform. A lawsuit framed around applicants can quantify long-term damages, expose adverse impact, and leverage both state licensing violations and federal civil-rights principles.
4. Incumbents Are Not Immune
That said, incumbents are not without viable claims. Retaliatory use of psychological referrals — for whistleblowers, complainants, or officers engaged in protected activity — can create clear liability under Title VII, NYSHRL, NYCHRL, and even 42 U.S.C. § 1983. These cases tend to focus less on long-term earnings loss and more on constitutional harms (due process, equal protection, retaliation).
5. The Takeaway
Both applicants and incumbents are entitled to lawful, validated evaluations conducted by licensed psychologists. But when agencies fail to comply, applicants bear the heavier burden — often losing entire careers before they begin. For this reason, applicant challenges are not only actionable but essential to reforming systemic abuse across New York State’s police agencies.
V. Step-by-Step: What To Do If You Were Disqualified
An unlawful psychological disqualification is not the end of the road. Whether you are an applicant turned away before you start, or an incumbent officer pushed off duty, there are concrete steps you can take to challenge the decision. Each step preserves evidence, enforces your rights, and sets the foundation for complaint or litigation.
Step 1 — Build a Detailed Timeline
Record the dates of each evaluation, the names and titles of evaluators, and the agency or unit that referred you.
Keep copies of letters, emails, or notices you received about the evaluation.
Note whether you were told the evaluation was “final,” “appealable,” or “subject to review.”
Include your own contemporaneous notes of what the evaluator asked, what was said, and how long the session lasted.
This timeline will later help identify whether unlicensed individuals were involved and whether later licensed evaluators relied on tainted prior reports.
Step 2 — Verify Licensure Status
Use the New York State Education Department (NYSED) Office of the Professions Verification Portal to check if your evaluator was licensed on the exact date of your exam.
If they were not licensed, determine whether they had a limited permit under Education Law § 7605 and whether supervision was documented.
Save screenshots and PDFs of the licensure records, as these are critical evidence.
Remember: under Education Law §§ 6512 and 6513, practicing without a license or misusing the title “psychologist” is a crime.
Step 3 — Demand UGESP Compliance Documents
File a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request (or FOIA if federal) with the agency. Request:
Candidate-flow data by race, gender, and Hispanic origin for each step in the selection process.
Adverse-impact analyses applying the four-fifths rule.
The job analysis that supposedly supports the psych exam.
Any validation studies (content, construct, or criterion-related) showing the exam predicts police performance.
Cutoff scores and the rationale for them.
Periodic review records (UGESP requires ongoing validation).
Evaluator rosters, licensure status, and supervision records.
Contracts with outside vendors providing psychological screening services.
UGESP (29 C.F.R. Part 1607) requires agencies to retain these records. If they cannot produce them, that itself is evidence of noncompliance.
Step 4 — Capture Reliance on Unlawful Evaluations
If a licensed psychologist later disqualified you based on earlier unlicensed reports, document that reliance. This “chain of taint” is critical: UGESP requires the actual selection procedure to be validated, and a process rooted in unlawful exams cannot be validated retroactively.
Step 5 — Document Your Professional Fitness
Counter the “unfit” label by assembling evidence of your competence under stress:
Employment records (Peace Officer service, corrections, security, military, EMS).
Incident reports showing your ability to de-escalate, manage crises, or perform under pressure.
Letters of commendation, awards, or supervisor evaluations.
This creates a factual record that undermines the psychological disqualification and strengthens damages claims.
Step 6 — File an NYSED Complaint
Submit a written complaint to the Office of Professional Discipline at NYSED, citing:
Education Law Article 153 (licensure requirement).
§§ 6512 and 6513 (criminal penalties for unauthorized practice and title misuse).
Professional Policing Act of 2021 (PPA) (psych exams must be conducted by licensed psychologists).
MPTC standards (licensure required even pre-PPA).
UGESP (29 C.F.R. Part 1607) (evaluation is a selection device requiring validation and adverse-impact monitoring).
A sample letter template will be provided in Section VI.
Step 7 — Preserve Civil-Rights Claims
File a charge with the EEOC (within 300 days) if you believe the psych exam disproportionately excluded you based on race, sex, or national origin, or was used retaliatorily.
Consider parallel filings with the New York State Division of Human Rights (NYSDHR) or the New York City Commission on Human Rights (NYCCHR).
These filings preserve claims under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL.
Step 8 — Consult Counsel for Litigation Options
Potential claims may include:
Article 78 petitions (arbitrary and capricious determinations).
Title VII disparate impact actions for unvalidated, discriminatory selection devices.
NYSHRL/NYCHRL claims for adverse impact or retaliation.
42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims for due process or equal protection violations.
Because applicant damages can include decades of lost earnings, pensions, and benefits, these cases can be powerful vehicles for systemic reform.
👉 Next comes Section VI – Sample Complaint Letter, which will give readers a practical template to adapt for NYSED filings.
VI. Sample Complaint Letter to the New York State Education Department
One of the most effective steps you can take if you were disqualified by an unlicensed psychologist (or if a licensed evaluator relied on unlicensed reports) is to file a complaint with the New York State Education Department (NYSED), Office of Professional Discipline (OPD).
Below is a template you can adapt. Replace the placeholders with your own information and facts. Attach copies of any letters, evaluation reports, or license verification printouts.
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[City, State, ZIP Code]
[Phone Number]
[Email Address]
Date: [Insert Date]
To:
Office of Professional Discipline
New York State Education Department — Office of the Professions
89 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12234
Re: Complaint — Unauthorized Practice of Psychology in Police Screening
Dear Sir/Madam:
I am writing to file a formal complaint concerning the unauthorized practice of psychology by individuals employed or contracted by [Agency Name]. These individuals evaluated me in connection with my application/employment as a police officer, even though they were not licensed psychologists at the time of evaluation as required by law.
Facts
On [date], I was evaluated by [Name of Evaluator] in connection with my application/employment with [Agency].
On [date], I was evaluated by [Name of Evaluator].
A search of the NYSED license verification portal shows that:
[Name #1] was not licensed on the date of my evaluation (license issued [date]).
[Name #2] was not licensed until [date].
No record of a limited permit under Education Law § 7605 exists for either evaluator.
In [year], a licensed evaluator ([Name]) disqualified me but explicitly relied on the unlawful reports of [Names].
As a result, I was denied employment/placed on restricted duty, causing me substantial harm, including lost earnings, reputational damage, and being permanently labeled as “psychologically unfit.”
Violations
Education Law Article 153 (§§ 7601-a, 7605): Defines the practice of psychology and permits only licensed psychologists, or limited-permit holders under supervision, to perform such work.
Education Law §§ 6512 and 6513: Make unauthorized practice and misuse of the protected title “psychologist” criminal offenses.
Professional Policing Act of 2021 (New York State law): Requires that all police psychological evaluations be performed by licensed psychologists under Article 153.
Municipal Police Training Council (MPTC) Standards: Have long required the use of licensed psychologists for such evaluations, even prior to the PPA.
Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP, 29 C.F.R. Part 1607): Treat psychological exams as “selection procedures” requiring job-related validation and adverse impact monitoring. Evaluations conducted by unlicensed personnel cannot meet this standard.
Requested Action
I respectfully request that the Office of Professional Discipline:
Investigate the unlicensed practice of psychology by [Name(s)].
Determine whether [Agency] knowingly allowed unlicensed individuals to conduct psychological evaluations in violation of state law.
Take appropriate enforcement action under Education Law §§ 6512 and 6513.
Consider referral to other authorities regarding the civil-rights implications under UGESP and Title VII.
Please find attached:
Copies of my evaluation notices/letters.
License verification records from NYSED.
Documentation showing reliance on unlicensed reports.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Respectfully,
[Signature]
[Your Printed Name]
Notes for Readers
Be precise with dates and names. NYSED will look carefully at whether the evaluator was licensed on the exact date of the evaluation.
Attach proof. Include screenshots of NYSED’s license lookup and any agency letters naming the evaluator.
Keep a copy. Always save the complaint and attachments for your own records.
Expect follow-up. NYSED may contact you for clarification or supporting evidence.
VII. Conclusion and Call to Action
Psychological evaluations in police hiring and employment are not optional checkboxes. They are career-determining judgments that decide who may serve, who is excluded, and who is stigmatized as “unfit.” Because of their extraordinary weight, the law requires these evaluations to be conducted by licensed psychologists, validated under UGESP, and monitored for fairness and adverse impact.
The reality across New York State has been far different. Agencies have allowed unlicensed individuals to perform evaluations, licensed evaluators have relied on unlawful prior reports, and few if any agencies can produce the validation studies and candidate-flow data that UGESP demands. The result is a screening regime that is unlawful under state licensing law and defective under federal civil-rights law.
For applicants, the damage is especially severe. A single unlawful evaluation can shut the door on an entire career path, causing decades of lost earnings and benefits. For incumbents, unlawful evaluations can derail promotions, lead to suspensions, or end a career prematurely. In both cases, the harm is real — and the law provides remedies.
Here’s what you should do now if you were disqualified or restricted:
Verify licensure of your evaluator on the date of your exam.
File a complaint with the New York State Education Department using the template provided.
Submit FOIL requests to obtain UGESP compliance documents (candidate-flow data, validation studies, job analyses).
Preserve your rights by filing timely charges with the EEOC, NYSDHR, or NYCCHR.
Consult counsel about further remedies, including Article 78 petitions, Title VII actions, and civil-rights claims under NYSHRL, NYCHRL, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The law is on your side. Education Law makes unlicensed practice a felony. The Professional Policing Act of 2021 codifies that police psychological exams must be conducted by licensed psychologists. UGESP requires validation, monitoring, and fairness. Agencies that ignore these obligations are not exercising discretion; they are violating the law.
If you believe you were harmed by an unlawful psychological evaluation, do not remain silent. File your complaint. Demand your records. Preserve your rights. And most importantly, seek independent legal advice before your deadlines expire.
At The Sanders Firm, P.C., we have been raising these issues for years and continue to represent applicants and officers harmed by unlawful practices. If you need guidance on your specific case, contact us to discuss your options.
The bottom line: No police agency in New York State is above the law. Unlawful evaluations are not discretion — they are violations. And those responsible can, and must, be held to account.