If They Try to Decertify You, Fight It

Why Former Law-Enforcement Officers Must Challenge “Removal for Cause,” Protect Their Certification, and Preserve Their Professional and Economic Future

For most law-enforcement officers, separation from an agency is supposed to mark the end of an employment relationship, not the beginning of a government-imposed professional disability. Whether an officer retires, resigns, reaches a disciplinary settlement, or is otherwise separated from service, there is an important legal distinction between the former employer’s authority over that particular job and the State’s ability to interfere with the officer’s future professional opportunities. New York’s current police-certification system has increasingly blurred that distinction because a former agency’s decision to characterize a separation as a “removal for cause” can trigger permanent invalidation of an officer’s Police Officer Basic Training Certificate through the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services (“DCJS”). The practical consequence is that a dispute arising within one police department can follow an officer beyond that department and interfere with the ability to continue working elsewhere.

That consequence is too significant to accept without a legal challenge. Law-enforcement officers spend years acquiring specialized training, certifications, institutional knowledge, investigative experience, supervisory experience, courtroom experience, firearms proficiency, emergency-response training, administrative knowledge, and other professional skills that retain economic value long after employment with a particular agency ends. Much of that training was paid for by the public, but the officer supplied the years of service necessary to turn it into usable professional experience. Those skills can support another law-enforcement career, but they also have substantial value in investigations, corporate security, compliance, fraud prevention, risk management, consulting, government contracting, emergency management, executive protection, security administration, and numerous other fields. A former employer should not be permitted to convert the termination of one employment relationship into a governmental impediment to monetizing an entire career’s accumulated experience without being required to justify what it has done under the law.

The Governmental Consequence Extends Far Beyond the Last Day of Employment

The problem begins with the statutory and regulatory consequences attached to the manner in which an officer’s separation is reported. Executive Law § 845 requires law-enforcement agencies to notify DCJS when an officer ceases to serve and to identify the nature of that cessation, while 9 NYCRR § 6056.4 governs the reporting process and the resulting certification consequences. General Municipal Law § 209-q(1)(b-1) authorizes permanent invalidation of a basic-training certificate upon a qualifying removal for cause. The regulations separately define “removal for cause” to include, under specified circumstances, a resignation occurring “subsequent to and in connection with” qualifying allegations of misconduct. See 9 NYCRR § 6056.2(h)(2)(b). Once the former agency places that characterization into the regulatory process, the consequences no longer remain confined to the former employer’s personnel system.

That distinction matters because the former employer is effectively making a governmental representation concerning the officer’s continuing professional eligibility. The representation may subsequently affect whether another agency will consider the officer for employment and whether the training credential remains valid. The former agency therefore is not simply reporting that its own employment relationship ended; it is participating in a governmental process capable of reaching the officer’s future career and earning capacity.

The statutory purpose of police certification is legitimate. The State has an obvious interest in preventing officers who have engaged in disqualifying misconduct from moving from one department to another without disclosure. But legitimate regulation does not eliminate the requirement that the government act accurately, rationally, and within the bounds of its statutory authority. Accountability does not require accepting every employer characterization as conclusive, particularly where the underlying disciplinary history, settlement documents, employment records, or chronology contradict the characterization being supplied to DCJS.

The former employer is entitled to report what actually occurred. It is not entitled to rewrite what occurred merely because a different characterization will create a harsher post-employment consequence.

Ferretti Demonstrates Why These Determinations Must Be Challenged

The Third Department’s decision in Matter of Ferretti v. New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 06000 (3d Dep’t Oct. 30, 2025), is one of the clearest recent examples of why former officers cannot simply accept a removal-for-cause designation as an accomplished fact. Ferretti had been served with disciplinary charges while employed by the Glenville Police Department, but the disciplinary matter was resolved through a consent award. Under that agreement, he served a 120-day suspension without pay and was thereafter to be “reinstated full time and in good standing,” subject to the chief’s discretion concerning an alternate assignment. Ferretti completed the suspension, returned to work, and then resigned several weeks later to explore other law-enforcement opportunities. The chief initially reported that separation to DCJS as a standard resignation.

The story did not end there. Months later, after the chief learned that Ferretti had applied for employment with the Schenectady County Sheriff’s Department, he contacted DCJS and sought to change the designation from a standard resignation to a removal for cause. DCJS accepted the revised characterization and permanently invalidated Ferretti’s Police Officer Basic Training Certificate. During the administrative review, Ferretti produced attendance reports, payroll records, the consent award, and the chief’s own department-wide email showing that the disciplinary suspension had been completed and that Ferretti had returned to full pay and benefits. He also raised the possibility that the later reporting was retaliatory.

DCJS nevertheless upheld the removal-for-cause designation. Ferretti commenced an Article 78 proceeding, and although Supreme Court initially dismissed his challenge, the Third Department reversed the determination as against DCJS. The Court accepted DCJS’s general interpretation that the amended regulation requires a causal nexus between misconduct allegations and a later separation, but it held that DCJS’s application of that interpretation to Ferretti lacked a sound basis in reason and disregarded the actual facts before the agency. The consent award expressly restored Ferretti to good standing, documentary evidence refuted the chief’s assertion that he never returned to work, the chief had originally reported a standard resignation, and nothing in the consent award prohibited Ferretti from seeking employment with another law-enforcement agency.

The Third Department identified the broader danger in DCJS’s position. If the agency’s reasoning were accepted, a police department could characterize a resignation as being connected to misconduct merely because the employment history contained some prior disciplinary consequence, even where that discipline had been fully resolved. The Court recognized that such an interpretation could permit an agency to reach backward indefinitely and use completed discipline as the basis for later professional decertification. It also recognized the fundamental unfairness of allowing the government to render a negotiated disciplinary resolution effectively meaningless after an officer had surrendered procedural rights in reliance upon the settlement.

That reasoning deserves considerable attention from anyone facing decertification. A settlement is supposed to settle something. Discipline that has been completed cannot simply remain available indefinitely as an administrative weapon to be repurposed whenever an officer seeks another opportunity. A reinstatement in good standing cannot rationally mean one thing when the settlement is negotiated and something entirely different when the former employer later decides that the officer should not work somewhere else.

Kitto Shows Why the Underlying Employment Record Cannot Be Ignored

Ferretti did not arise in isolation. The Third Department had already confronted a related problem in Matter of Kitto v. City of Albany, N.Y. Department of Police, 213 A.D.3d 1165 (3d Dep’t 2023). There, the officer faced disciplinary charges arising from an off-duty incident and negotiated his resignation in connection with a criminal disposition. Critically, his union attorney sought an agreement under which the disciplinary charges would be withdrawn before the resignation so that Kitto could preserve his New York State Police Officer Basic Training Certificate and remain eligible to seek law-enforcement employment elsewhere. The City’s attorney subsequently sent an email stating that the disciplinary charges had been withdrawn, and Kitto resigned later that day.

The police department later took a different position. It reported to DCJS that Kitto had ceased service because of incompetence or misconduct and maintained that the police chief had never personally authorized withdrawal of the disciplinary charges. That later representation created a factual dispute concerning whether the charges had actually remained pending at the time of resignation. The Third Department concluded that Supreme Court had erred in disposing of the dispute at the pre-answer stage because the competing evidence created factual questions requiring further proceedings.

The importance of Kitto is not limited to the prior regulatory language involved in that case. The regulation has since been broadened, a point expressly recognized by the Third Department in Ferretti. The enduring significance of Kitto is that government reporting cannot be divorced from the actual facts surrounding the separation. Who authorized the disciplinary resolution, what representations were made, whether the charges remained pending, what the parties intended, what written documentation exists, and what the agency reported afterward are not peripheral matters. They may determine whether the governmental characterization of the separation can survive judicial scrutiny.

The economic consequences in Kitto also illustrate why these cases cannot be dismissed as internal employment disputes. Kitto alleged that after his resignation he obtained an employment opportunity requiring a federal security clearance, but issues arose when his former department reported that he had been removed for cause and DCJS invalidated his training certificate. That is exactly how a dispute with one former employer can migrate into an entirely different professional setting. The challenged governmental act does not remain confined to the agency where the dispute originated; it can interfere with the individual’s ability to convert prior public service into future employment.

Article 78 Is a Remedy, Not a Universal Liability Shield

Former officers also need to understand the procedural distinction between challenging the administrative determination and pursuing independently actionable misconduct by the governmental actors who caused or contributed to the harm. Article 78 is critically important because DCJS possesses the authority to correct material inaccuracies in the State registry and because the agency ultimately determines whether the challenged certification status will remain in effect. Ferretti expressly held that, once DCJS conducted its administrative review and sustained the removal-for-cause characterization, DCJS had made the final administrative determination causing the certification injury. The former employer therefore was properly dismissed from that particular Article 78 proceeding because the principal relief sought was annulment of DCJS’s determination and reinstatement of the certificate.

That holding needs to be understood accurately. It does not establish that the former employer enjoys immunity from every other claim arising from its conduct. It establishes which respondent was responsible for the final determination challenged in that Article 78 proceeding. The distinction is substantial because Article 78 review and a plenary civil-rights action answer different legal questions and provide different remedies.

Indeed, Kitto itself underscores the procedural limitation. The Third Department rejected an argument that fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation had been adequately raised within the Article 78 proceeding because those causes of action had not been pleaded and were not cognizable under CPLR 7803. That is not a holding that independently viable claims cease to exist whenever Article 78 is available. It demonstrates the opposite problem: a litigant cannot expect Article 78 to perform the work of a plenary civil action where the alleged wrong falls outside the limited grounds of administrative review provided by CPLR 7803.

That is why the legal audit cannot end with the question of whether DCJS acted arbitrarily and capriciously. The conduct of the former employer must be examined separately. Was the officer treated differently from similarly situated former officers? Was a removal-for-cause designation imposed selectively? Was the reporting connected to protected activity? Was the certification process used as retaliation after litigation, discrimination complaints, whistleblowing, union activity, or other protected conduct? Was materially inaccurate information knowingly transmitted to DCJS? Did policymakers establish or ratify a broader municipal practice affecting similarly situated former officers? Those questions may implicate legal theories that are analytically distinct from the validity of the DCJS determination itself.

Perros Demonstrates Why Post-Employment Governmental Conduct Can Become a Civil-Rights Case

The significance of that distinction is illustrated by Perros v. County of Nassau, 238 F. Supp. 3d 395 (E.D.N.Y. 2017). The plaintiffs in Perros were former Nassau County correction officers and deputy sheriffs who retired because of service-related disabilities. After retirement, they sought the documentation commonly known as a “Good Guy Letter,” which affected their ability to obtain the preferred treatment afforded qualifying retired law-enforcement personnel in connection with pistol licensing. Nassau County allegedly maintained a practice of denying those letters to disability retirees while providing them to otherwise similarly situated retirees who had not retired because of disability.

The federal court rejected several of the plaintiffs’ theories. Most importantly for purposes of careful civil-rights analysis, it held that the plaintiffs had not established a protected property interest sufficient to support their procedural-due-process claim. But the court did not conclude that the County’s post-retirement conduct was beyond constitutional scrutiny. The equal-protection and Monell claims survived because the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that similarly situated former employees were treated differently and that Nassau County maintained a pattern and practice of withholding the retirement benefit from the disfavored group. Perros, 238 F. Supp. 3d at 404.

That distinction is essential. A weak due-process theory does not dispose of a viable equal-protection theory. The availability of administrative review does not dispose of a viable retaliation claim. Article 78 does not automatically extinguish an independently actionable municipal policy or practice. The analysis must be conducted claim by claim rather than treating every post-employment government action as nothing more than an administrative dispute.

Perros is particularly instructive because the governmental conduct occurred after the employment relationship had ended. The former employees were no longer working for Nassau County, yet the County still possessed governmental authority capable of affecting an important post-retirement benefit. The court subjected that exercise of governmental authority to equal-protection and municipal-liability analysis rather than treating retirement as the point at which civil-rights protection disappeared.

The same conceptual framework matters when a former police department uses its reporting authority to seek permanent decertification. The former employment relationship may have ended, but the government is acting again. The new act may carry new consequences. Where the evidence demonstrates discrimination, retaliation, selective treatment, or implementation of an unconstitutional municipal policy, the fact that DCJS later makes an administrative determination does not automatically cleanse the antecedent conduct of the former employer.

The Challenge Must Begin Before the Government’s Version Becomes the Permanent Record

This is why officers facing removal-for-cause reporting need to challenge the process from the beginning rather than waiting until years later, when the designation interferes with another employment opportunity. The administrative record matters. The officer needs the disciplinary charges, settlement agreements, arbitration awards, resignation or retirement documents, personnel orders, payroll records, correspondence, Registry Update Forms, communications with DCJS, and any other records demonstrating what actually occurred. If the former employer originally characterized the separation one way and later changed its position, that evidence matters. If the officer was restored to duty or good standing, that evidence matters. If similarly situated employees received materially different treatment, those comparators matter. If the reporting followed protected activity or arose only after the former employer discovered that the officer was pursuing another opportunity, that chronology may matter as well.

The cases demonstrate why this record-building exercise cannot be superficial. Ferretti defeated DCJS’s determination because documentary evidence directly contradicted the narrative supporting decertification. His attendance records, payroll records, consent award, and the chief’s own prior communications were not merely background evidence; they exposed why the later removal-for-cause characterization lacked a rational factual basis. Kitto likewise survived dismissal because competing documents and affidavits created unresolved factual questions concerning whether the disciplinary charges had actually been withdrawn and whether the police department’s later report accurately reflected the separation.

That is how these cases need to be approached. Do not merely argue that the result is unfair. Establish precisely why the governmental designation is inaccurate, irrational, selectively imposed, retaliatory, discriminatory, inconsistent with a settlement, or otherwise unlawful. Administrative agencies and courts decide records, not generalized grievances.

The Former Employer Does Not Own the Rest of Your Working Life

The larger principle is straightforward. A law-enforcement agency possesses considerable authority over its employees while the employment relationship exists. That authority includes legitimate disciplinary power and, where authorized by law, the ability to terminate employment. But the loss of one government job and the loss of statewide professional eligibility are fundamentally different consequences. The former ends an employment relationship. The latter can impair the person’s ability to use years of training and experience elsewhere.

New York should not permit those two concepts to become indistinguishable.

A police chief, sheriff, commissioner, or municipality may believe that an officer should no longer work for that particular agency. That does not necessarily establish that the officer should be professionally disabled throughout New York or prevented from capitalizing upon years of law-enforcement training in the next phase of life. The certification regime cannot become an unofficial extension of municipal discipline through which one former employer obtains continuing leverage over future employment long after the employment relationship has ended.

That concern becomes especially acute where the reporting occurs after the original disciplinary controversy has been resolved. Ferretti demonstrates the danger. The officer accepted discipline, waived his right to a hearing, served the agreed suspension, returned to work in good standing, and later resigned. Only after the chief learned that Ferretti was attempting to obtain another law-enforcement position did the chief seek the removal-for-cause designation that ultimately caused permanent invalidation of the certificate. The Third Department properly refused to allow DCJS to transform that history into something it was not.

Former officers need to understand the significance of that principle before the same thing happens to them. If the former agency reports an inaccurate removal for cause, challenge the report through the DCJS process. If DCJS accepts that characterization despite a record demonstrating that the statutory or regulatory predicate has not been established, challenge DCJS through Article 78. If the evidence also supports an independent discrimination, retaliation, equal-protection, contractual, or other plenary claim against the former employer or responsible governmental actors, analyze and pursue that claim in the procedural vehicle where it actually belongs.

The answer is not to throw every conceivable theory into an Article 78 petition. The answer is to stop treating Article 78 as though it defines the outer boundary of governmental liability.

Protect the Economic Value of the Career You Already Earned

There is life after a law-enforcement career, and there is economic value in the experience accumulated during that career. Officers who leave service need to think about certification and post-employment records with the same seriousness they give pension benefits, accrued leave, retirement credentials, and other tangible interests because these records can affect the next stage of their professional lives.

Some former officers will seek employment with another police department. Others will move into private investigations, corporate security, consulting, compliance, risk management, fraud prevention, training, or entirely different professions. Whatever path they choose, they should not allow an inaccurate governmental designation to remain unchallenged merely because they have no immediate intention of returning to police work. Professional records have a way of resurfacing precisely when another opportunity appears, and by that point evidence may be harder to obtain, memories may have faded, personnel may have changed, and procedural deadlines may already have expired.

The State has every right to maintain a legitimate certification system designed to protect the public from officers whose proven misconduct demonstrates professional unfitness. What it does not have is a legitimate interest in preserving materially inaccurate employer reporting, ignoring documentary evidence, or allowing the certification system to become a mechanism for punishment beyond that authorized by law. Likewise, a municipality does not acquire the right to impose continuing professional consequences merely because it once employed the individual.

That is the point officers need to understand. Leaving the agency does not mean surrendering the right to challenge what the agency says about why you left. Retirement does not mean abandoning the professional value of the training you received. Settlement does not mean allowing completed discipline to be revived years later for a new purpose. And the existence of an Article 78 remedy does not mean the government receives a free pass for independently actionable discrimination, retaliation, unequal treatment, or unconstitutional municipal conduct.

If your former employer attempts to turn your separation into a removal for cause and permanent POST decertification, treat it as the serious legal and economic event that it is. Challenge the factual predicate, challenge the administrative determination, preserve every potential independent cause of action, and force the government to establish that the continuing disability it seeks to impose is actually authorized by law.

One agency may have ended your employment. That does not give that agency, or DCJS, an unquestioned right to determine the economic value of the rest of your professional life.

About the Author