I. Introduction: Defiance, Continuity, and Integrity

I wasn’t intimidated as a cop, and I’m not intimidated as a lawyer. I wasn’t corruptible in uniform, and I’m not corruptible in a suit. Their closed-door meetings plotting against “Eric Sanders” don’t scare me—because I’m not out here breaking the law. I’m fulfilling my ethical duty as an advocate and counselor at law.

The NYPD acts less like a law enforcement agency and more like a self-preserving enterprise—protecting insiders, punishing dissenters, and using its power to shield misconduct. It’s the same two-tier discipline system that has defined the Department for decades: the meat eaters at the top insulated from consequences, while the grass eaters below—the rank-and-file and applicants—are the ones punished when accountability looms.

This fight isn’t new. Back in my NYPD days, I confronted the same corruption: unlicensed psychological screenings used to sideline candidates, junk-science drug tests weaponized against minorities, and a disciplinary system designed to protect the powerful while crushing the unconnected. Today, I continue that fight, armed with statute, case law, and constitutional argument.

And make no mistake: these aren’t minor oversights. The Department’s use of unlicensed psychologists is a direct violation of New York Education Law and, because those evaluations shape hiring and discipline, it also violates the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP, 29 C.F.R. Part 1607) and the Municipal Police Training Council (MPTC) standards, both of which demand lawful, validated, and job-related selection procedures. The Department’s reliance on junk-science hair testing—whether branded as RIAH, EIA, or HEIA—likewise flouts UGESP and fails the Frye standard, producing racially disparate and scientifically unreliable results. And the Department’s two-tier discipline structure, where insiders are shielded and rank-and-file are sacrificed, doesn’t just offend fairness; it risks liability under federal, state, and local civil rights laws, including Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

What I challenged then, I challenge now—because the system has never changed.

II. The Legal Framework They Ignore

The misconduct I describe is not a matter of policy preference or “best practices.” It is unlawful because it violates clear statutory and regulatory mandates that govern how employment decisions are to be made in this state and country. The NYPD has no special exemption from these rules, yet it has built an entire system that depends on ignoring them.

A. New York Education Law: Licensing Is Not Optional

The practice of psychology in New York is not an open field. Under Education Law § 7601-a(1), psychology is defined broadly to include “observation, description, evaluation, interpretation, and modification of human behavior” for the purpose of diagnosing or treating mental and emotional conditions. That statutory definition squarely covers the psychological evaluations the NYPD uses in its hiring and disciplinary processes.

To lawfully perform that work, one must be a licensed psychologist or hold a limited permit under Education Law § 7605. Sections 6512 and 6513 make clear that practicing without a license is not only prohibited but criminal:

• § 6512(1): Unauthorized practice of a profession constitutes a class E felony.

• § 6513: Permitting or aiding unauthorized practice constitutes a class A misdemeanor.

These provisions mean that when unlicensed individuals conduct NYPD psychological screenings, they are committing crimes under state law. Worse, the Department itself may be liable for permitting and directing those acts.

B. The Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP)

The unlawful use of unlicensed psychologists is compounded by the UGESP (29 C.F.R. Part 1607), binding regulations adopted by the EEOC and DOJ to enforce Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These guidelines are explicit:

• All employment selection procedures — including psychological evaluations — must be valid, reliable, and job-related (§ 1607.3–.5).

• There is no presumption of validity (§ 1607.9). The employer bears the burden of conducting validation studies to demonstrate compliance.

• If a test cannot be validated, the employer must discontinue its use (§ 1607.3A).

By using unlicensed practitioners to conduct unvalidated psychological screenings, the NYPD violates both state licensing law and federal civil rights law simultaneously.

C. The Municipal Police Training Council (MPTC) Standards

The MPTC was established to ensure that police hiring and training follow lawful and professional standards. Its regulations require that all candidate assessments be job-related, non-discriminatory, and consistent with state law. When the NYPD substitutes unlicensed evaluators or relies on unvalidated junk science, it not only undermines professional integrity but also violates the MPTC framework designed to protect both the public and applicants.

Sidebar: The Employment Test Failures

1. The Junk Science Behind NYPD’s Hair Testing

• Radioimmunoassay of Hair (RIAH)

  • Uses radioactive isotopes to detect drug metabolites.

  • Problems: Prone to external contamination; no consistent peer-reviewed validation.

  • Legal Standard: Fails Frye (no general acceptance) and UGESP (no demonstrated validity, job-relatedness, or disparate impact studies).

• Enzyme Immunoassay (EIA)

  • Screening technique using enzyme reactions to indicate drug presence.

  • Problems: High false positives, especially for cocaine, since environmental exposure can trigger results.

  • Legal Standard: Fails Frye and UGESP.

• High-Performance Enzyme Immunoassay (HEIA)

  • Marketed as a “newer, more precise” version of EIA.

  • Problems: Still lacks scientific consensus; proprietary method not independently validated.

  • Legal Standard: Fails Frye and UGESP.

2. Why Boston Matters

• Massachusetts Civil Service Commission (2013): Could not distinguish ingestion from contamination; lacked uniform standards.

  • Quote: “A positive hair test, standing alone, cannot establish ingestion.”

  • Declared method a “work in progress” unfit for discipline without corroboration.

• Jones v. City of Boston (1st Cir. 2014 & 2016): Produced racially disparate results against Black officers; settlement of $2.6 million (2023).

  • Confirmed UGESP controls disparate impact analysis.

• Psychemedics Corp. v. City of Boston (Suffolk Sup. Ct. No. 17-2494-BLS1): Boston sought indemnification from Psychemedics.

  • Alleged negligent practices and lack of standards.

  • Denial of summary judgment confirmed factual disputes about reliability and validity.

  • Courts refused to declare hair testing reliable as a matter of law.

3. The Governing Standards

• UGESP Is Binding

  • 29 C.F.R. §§ 1607.3–1607.15 are binding EEOC/DOJ regulations.

  • Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971); Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody (1975): Disparate impact requires proof of job-relatedness and business necessity.

  • UGESP requires validation studies (§ 1607.5).

  • No assumption of validity (§ 1607.9).

  • If validation fails, the test must be discontinued (§ 1607.3A).

• Frye Requires Scientific Consensus

  • Frye (1923); People v. Wesley (N.Y. 1994): Novel scientific evidence admissible only with general acceptance in the scientific community.

  • No assumption of validity — peer-reviewed consensus required.

  • Commercial adoption or court use ≠ acceptance.

  • Wesley: “the scientific community, not just the courts, must recognize the reliability.”

• FDA Clearance ≠ Validation

  • Medtronic v. Lohr (1996): FDA 510(k) ≠ scientific validation.

  • Regulatory approval does not satisfy Frye or UGESP.

4. Courts Have Been Burned Before

• Blood spatter, bite marks, arson analysis: once widely accepted, later discredited. (NRC Report, 2009).

• PCAST (2016): Warned many forensic methods lack foundational validity.

• DOJ/FBI (2015): Found 90% error rate in microscopic hair analysis testimony.

• Lesson: Adoption ≠ validity. Frye requires scientific consensus, not habit or convenience.

5. The Lesson

Boston’s trilogy and the national forensic collapse lead to one conclusion:

• Hair testing is scientifically unsound, racially discriminatory, and legally indefensible.

• Denial today = liability tomorrow.

• The NYPD’s reliance on RIAH/EIA/HEIA places it squarely on the same collision course.

D. Two-Tier Discipline: A Civil Rights Problem

The Department’s two-tier system — shielding insiders while punishing rank-and-file and applicants — is more than a cultural problem. It exposes the City to liability under multiple legal regimes:

• Title VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000e): Prohibits disparate treatment and disparate impact.

• 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985: Remedies for deprivation of rights under color of law and conspiracies to deny equal protection.

• NYSHRL & NYCHRL: State and city laws barring discrimination and unequal treatment in employment.

When insiders — the “meat eaters” — are spared consequences while outsiders — the “grass eaters” — are punished for less or for nothing, the result is not just hypocrisy; it is actionable misconduct under civil rights law.

III. Institutional Evasion and the Spoils System

The NYPD has never lacked for rules. What it lacks is respect for them. The Department has mastered the art of evasion — taking clear statutory and regulatory mandates and twisting them until they serve the insiders instead of the law. The Medical Division is the centerpiece of this system, not as a guardian of health or fitness, but as a gatekeeping mechanism for power, pensions, and punishment.

A. The Medical Division as a Pension Machine

For the politically connected, the Medical Division has long been the golden ticket. Its evaluations are routinely used to usher high-ranking officers into tax-free disability pensions, insulating insiders from accountability while guaranteeing financial reward. These determinations often lack transparency, are insulated from independent review, and are shielded by the Department’s refusal to follow Education Law licensing requirements or UGESP validation standards. The result is a benefits system for the few, subsidized on the backs of the many.

B. Psychological Holds as Bureaucratic Weapons

The misuse of “psychological holds” is perhaps the starkest example of bureaucratic abuse. Candidates were often flagged as “psychologically unfit” not because of any genuine evaluation, but because they lacked paperwork — a college transcript, a driving record, or some other administrative document. By funneling those delays into the psychological system, investigators kept their own caseloads clean while saddling candidates with stigmatizing designations.

These holds were then reported to outside employers, sabotaging applicants’ job prospects and reputations. This practice was never about public safety; it was about paper-shuffling expedience and institutional cover. And it violated not just Education Law’s licensing requirements but also UGESP’s mandate that employment tests be job-related, validated, and nondiscriminatory.

C. Two-Tier Discipline in Action

The meat eaters — the politically connected at the top — are shielded even when misconduct is substantiated. Cases are quietly closed, penalties waived, and careers protected. The grass eaters — rank-and-file officers — are held to an entirely different standard, facing discipline, disqualification, or termination for infractions far less serious, or in many cases for no misconduct at all.

This structure is not incidental; it is the essence of the spoils system. Promotions, pensions, and protection flow to those aligned with power, while accountability is reserved for the expendable. That two-tier framework not only corrodes morale and public trust, it directly violates Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, all of which prohibit unequal treatment and disparate impact in employment.

D. A System Built on Misrepresentation

Every layer of the NYPD’s medical and psychological system is built on misrepresentation — a façade of professionalism and legality masking practices that are unlawful, unscientific, and discriminatory.

• Disability Pensions for Chiefs
  High-ranking officers with political ties routinely exit the Department under the guise of “disability.” These determinations are not the result of independent, licensed psychological or medical evaluation; they are the product of internal rubber-stamping by the very division whose leaders benefit from the outcome. Instead of accountability for misconduct or mismanagement, these insiders are rewarded with lifetime, tax-free disability pensions — a misuse of the medical system as a benefits machine for the powerful.

• Psychological Holds as Caseload Dumping
  FOIL disclosures and insider accounts confirm that candidates have been placed on so-called “psychological holds” not because of genuine mental health concerns, but because they lacked routine documents: a transcript, a driving record, a financial statement. Instead of managing their caseloads properly, investigators shifted the delay into the psychological pipeline, allowing them to report clean files while the candidate bore the stigma of being flagged as “psychologically questionable.” This practice not only violates Education Law and UGESP but also weaponizes bureaucracy against applicants, branding them with reputational scars that followed them into the civilian job market.

• False Presentation of Scientific Validity
  The Department touts its use of “scientific” testing — whether hair analysis for drug use or psychological evaluations for fitness — as if those methods are validated, reliable, and accepted. They are not. Hair testing (RIAH, EIA, HEIA) has been discredited in Boston and rejected by scientific consensus. Unlicensed psychological screenings violate state licensing law and have no grounding in peer-reviewed validation studies. Yet the NYPD persists in presenting these tools as legitimate, misleading courts, oversight bodies, and the public.

• Institutional Cover from Oversight
  When challenged, the Department hides behind the language of “guidance” or “longstanding practice,” pretending that regulatory mandates like UGESP or MPTC standards are optional. This is false. UGESP is binding under Title VII. MPTC standards carry the force of state law. Education Law §§ 7605, 6512, and 6513 impose criminal penalties for unauthorized practice. The NYPD knows this — but misrepresents the law to protect its system.

This is not sloppy administration. It is a deliberate strategy of misrepresentation: presenting unlawful practices as professional standards in order to protect insiders, punish outsiders, and maintain the spoils system that has defined the Department for decades.

IV. Media Complicity and Manufactured Legitimacy

The NYPD’s misconduct does not thrive in isolation. It survives — and flourishes — because of a steady stream of protection and amplification from the legacy media. For decades, mainstream outlets have looked the other way when the misconduct involves the meat eaters at the top, while eagerly publishing hit pieces when it involves the grass eaters or those who dare to challenge the system.

A. Puff Pieces and the Myth of “Saviors”

The press has long been enlisted to sell the public carefully crafted narratives. When a new commissioner or deputy commissioner arrives at One Police Plaza, the first order of business is not reform but a media rollout. Jessica S. Tisch, hailed as the Department’s latest “savior,” is the prime example. Feature stories highlight her pedigree, her credentials, and her promises of modernization. Absent from those glowing profiles is any discussion of the unlawful practices under her watch: unlicensed psychologists, junk-science drug testing, and a two-tier discipline system that violates state and federal law.

These puff pieces are not accidental. They are products of the NYPD’s Deputy Commissioner of Public Information (DCPI), which functions less as a public information office and more as a propaganda machine. Reporters are rewarded with access, exclusivity, and even the coveted NYPD press passes if they play along. In exchange, they reproduce the Department’s talking points, reinforcing the illusion of reform and legitimacy while concealing ongoing misconduct.

B. Hit Pieces Against Dissenters

While the meat eaters are shielded, dissenters are smeared. Officers, applicants, or advocates who challenge the system are painted as disgruntled, unstable, or self-interested. The same media outlets that turn a blind eye to the misconduct of deputy chiefs will rush to cover allegations against a rank-and-file officer, even when those allegations collapse under scrutiny. The imbalance is deliberate: reinforce the authority of insiders while undermining the credibility of critics.

C. The Silence Around Scandal

The most telling feature of media complicity is not what is published, but what is left unsaid. How many front-page stories have you seen about the NYPD’s use of unlicensed psychologists, despite clear violations of Education Law §§ 7605, 6512, and 6513? How many investigative features have examined the Department’s reliance on discredited hair testing methods, despite the lessons of the Boston litigation? How many editorials have addressed the racial disparities these practices produce, despite the binding requirements of UGESP and Title VII? The silence is deafening — and it is purchased through access, relationships, and fear of exclusion.

D. Manufactured Legitimacy

The result is manufactured legitimacy: a system where illegal and discriminatory practices are presented to the public as professional standards. Tisch is branded as a reformer. The Medical Division is portrayed as a guardian of fitness. The disciplinary system is described as “fair and transparent.” All of these are myths, crafted by DCPI and repeated by compliant outlets. The public is left with propaganda instead of truth, and accountability evaporates in the gap between reality and reporting.

V. Continuation, Not New

Some would like to believe that these revelations are recent — that the problems of unlicensed psychological screenings, junk-science testing, and two-tier discipline are new developments. That is convenient for the insiders, because it allows them to frame every scandal as an isolated incident and every critic as a sensationalist. But let’s be clear: none of this is new.

I challenged these very same practices as an NYPD officer. I saw firsthand how unlicensed “psychological evaluations” were weaponized to sideline candidates who didn’t fit the mold. I saw how bogus drug testing methods were introduced not to promote fairness, but to justify exclusions and punishments that could not withstand legitimate scrutiny. And I saw how the Department’s two-tier discipline system protected the politically connected while sacrificing the expendable.

The continuity is undeniable. What I confronted then, I confront now. The difference is that today I fight with the full weight of statute, case law, and constitutional protections. As a lawyer, I do what the Department fears most: expose its misconduct in forums it cannot control — the courts, the press, and the court of public opinion.

I have already laid the record in writing:

• Policing the Mind: How the NYPD’s Use of Unlicensed Psychologists Violates State Law, Undermines Civil Rights, and Compromises Public Trust — a detailed analysis of how the Department’s psychological screening practices flagrantly violate New York Education Law and erode civil liberties.

• Presumed Guilty by a Strand: Why the NYPD and Other Employers Must Reject Hair Drug Testing Absent Scientific Consensus — an in-depth examination of the lack of peer-reviewed support for hair testing, and how its use produces racially disparate outcomes that fail UGESP and Frye.

• Policing Was Born From Corruption and That’s Why It Can’t Solve Crime — a historical argument showing how American policing, including the NYPD, grew out of patronage and control rather than public safety. That lineage persists in today’s spoils system.

Together, these works establish a through-line: the issues are not new, the misconduct is not new, and the fight is not new. What changes is the context. As a cop, I raised these issues internally. As a lawyer, I raise them publicly and legally, where they cannot be silenced or buried.

So when the meat eaters and their allies in City Hall or the press pretend that these revelations are recent, understand the truth: this is a continuation. The only difference is that now I fight harder, smarter, and with the law on my side.

VI. Retaliation, Smears, and the Politics of Silence

When institutions can’t answer on the merits, they retaliate. That has always been the NYPD’s playbook. Rather than confront the clear statutory violations, the fraudulent science, or the two-tier discipline system, the Department and its allies retreat to the tools of intimidation: closed-door plotting, smear campaigns, and strategic silence.

A. Closed-Door Plotting

Insiders whisper about “how to expose Eric Sanders” as if I were the problem. They meet behind closed doors, not to address the unlawful use of unlicensed psychologists, or the Department’s reliance on discredited hair testing, or the pension pipeline for executives — but to strategize how to discredit the person pointing it out. It is a diversion, a way to shift focus away from the misconduct itself. What they fail to grasp is that I was never intimidated as a cop, I am not intimidated as a lawyer, and I will not be intimidated now.

B. Smears Over Substance

Because they cannot refute the facts, they resort to personal attacks. Instead of addressing Education Law §§ 7605, 6512, and 6513, they attack my name, my appearance, or my style. Instead of responding to the UGESP requirements or the Frye standard, they question my motives. Instead of debating the law, they deploy ad hominem nonsense. This is not accidental — it is the classic tactic of those with no legal or factual defense.

C. The Politics of Silence

The Department also relies on silence as a weapon. While the meat eaters enjoy puff pieces and protection, the unlawful practices at the core of the system are never acknowledged publicly. Legacy media outlets, bought off with access and exclusivity, look the other way. City Hall and its political patrons avoid the issue entirely. Silence becomes complicity. The misconduct persists not because it is defensible, but because those with the power to expose it refuse to speak.

D. Retaliation as Proof of Weakness

The irony is that every act of retaliation confirms the weakness of their position. If the Department’s practices were lawful, validated, and fair, they would have no need for smear campaigns or closed-door meetings. The reliance on intimidation and silence is itself proof that the system cannot withstand scrutiny. Retaliation does not expose me — it exposes them.

E. Tisch’s Legacy Is Her Mentors’ Legacy

Jessica S. Tisch is paraded as the NYPD’s modern “savior,” but she didn’t arrive in a vacuum. She idolizes her mentors — William J. Bratton and Raymond W. Kelly — men whose legacies are defined not by reform, but by litigation and systemic violations of civil rights.

• Bratton’s Broken Windows gave us unconstitutional stop-and-frisk, aggressive over-policing of minority communities, and statistical manipulation that corroded public trust. His tenure also produced litigation:

  • Maxwell v. Bratton (1996): A retired officer challenged Bratton’s vehicle checkpoints as unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

  • Raniola v. Bratton (2001): The Second Circuit revived a sex discrimination and retaliation case against Bratton, citing evidence of a hostile workplace culture under his leadership.

• Kelly’s tenure cemented surveillance, secrecy, and two-tier discipline — while fighting oversight in court:

  • Floyd v. City of New York (2013): Landmark ruling held Kelly’s stop-and-frisk program unconstitutional under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

  • Hassan v. City of New York (2012) and Raza v. City of New York (2013): Courts struck down the NYPD’s blanket surveillance of Muslims, holding it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments and forcing reforms in 2016.

Both men presided over the growth of a spoils system — rewarding insiders, silencing dissenters, and normalizing discriminatory practices under the guise of “public safety.”

Tisch doesn’t distance herself from this legacy; she embraces it. The use of unlicensed psychologists, reliance on junk-science drug testing, and perpetuation of a two-tier disciplinary system are not innovations under her watch. They are continuations of Bratton and Kelly’s playbook, carried forward with pride.

So when Tisch and her allies plot behind closed doors, when they smear critics instead of confronting facts, they are not innovating. They are repeating the same script written by her predecessors: suppress dissent, protect insiders, and manufacture legitimacy through propaganda.

VII. Civil Rights and Broader Implications

The misconduct inside the NYPD is not just a matter of poor management or questionable judgment. It implicates the most fundamental civil rights protections in our legal system. When the Department relies on unlicensed psychologists, discredited drug tests, and a two-tier disciplinary structure, it violates statutes, constitutional guarantees, and binding regulations.

A. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000e) prohibits employment practices that discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It does not require proof of intent; disparate impact alone is enough.

• The use of unlicensed psychological screenings in hiring and discipline violates Title VII because they are not job-related or validated under the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP, 29 C.F.R. Part 1607).

• The reliance on hair testing (RIAH, EIA, HEIA) compounds the violation by producing racially disparate results, as demonstrated in the Boston litigation (Jones v. City of Boston; Massachusetts Civil Service Commission; Psychemedics v. Boston).

• By failing to conduct UGESP-compliant validation studies, the NYPD operates outside the law. Under Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971) and Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody (1975), the Department cannot rely on these methods unless it can prove they are both job-related and consistent with business necessity. It has never done so.

B. Equal Protection and Due Process

The NYPD’s practices also raise direct constitutional concerns.

• Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause: The Department’s two-tier discipline system protects insiders while sacrificing outsiders — a form of arbitrary and discriminatory treatment that mirrors the unconstitutional patterns struck down in Floyd v. City of New York (2013).

• Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause: Candidates placed on “psychological hold” or branded as unfit without lawful, licensed evaluation are deprived of liberty and property interests (employment opportunities, reputational standing) without due process of law. These holds, often based on missing paperwork rather than medical necessity, are the epitome of arbitrary state action.

C. Federal Civil Rights Remedies

The misconduct is actionable not only under Title VII but also through other federal statutes:

• 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Provides a remedy against government actors who deprive individuals of constitutional or statutory rights under color of law.

• 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3): Prohibits conspiracies to deny equal protection — directly implicated when insiders collude to protect themselves while targeting others.

• Monell v. Department of Social Services (1978): Establishes municipal liability where unlawful practices are the result of official policy, custom, or deliberate indifference. The NYPD’s entrenched use of unlicensed screenings and invalid testing methods easily meets that threshold.

D. State and Local Civil Rights Laws

New York has its own robust civil rights protections, which the NYPD also violates:

• New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL): Prohibits employment discrimination on protected grounds, analyzed broadly since the 2019 amendments.

• New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL): One of the most protective civil rights laws in the nation, requiring only that plaintiffs show they were treated “less well” because of a protected characteristic. The Department’s disparate use of invalid employment practices squarely violates this standard.

E. Broader Implications: Trust, Legitimacy, and Liability

The cumulative effect of these violations is devastating. Every unlawful screening, every junk-science test, every act of two-tier discipline corrodes public trust and delegitimizes the Department’s claim to authority.

• For the rank-and-file, it confirms that fairness is a fiction.

• For applicants, it means exclusion based on unlawful and unscientific methods.

• For the public, it means a police force governed by protectionism, not law.

And for the City of New York, it means liability: lawsuits, settlements, and federal oversight. Boston’s litigation is not an outlier — it is a preview. The NYPD is on the same collision course, and denial today only guarantees accountability tomorrow.

VIII. Call to Action

The record is clear. The NYPD has built a system that violates state licensing laws, federal civil rights protections, and scientific standards of validity. It relies on unlicensed psychologists, junk-science testing, and a two-tier disciplinary system to preserve a spoils structure that rewards insiders and punishes outsiders. And it shields all of this misconduct through propaganda, silence, and retaliation.

The time for description is over. The time for enforcement is now.

A. Federal Enforcement: EEOC and DOJ

• Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC): Must investigate and enforce the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (29 C.F.R. Part 1607). The NYPD’s reliance on unvalidated hair testing and unlicensed psychological screening violates Title VII both as disparate impact and as failure to validate.

• Department of Justice (DOJ): Must use its authority to bring pattern-or-practice suits under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 when systemic violations are proven. Just as DOJ intervened after Floyd v. City of New York (2013), it must act again here. The Department’s misconduct is not episodic — it is structural.

B. State Enforcement: NYSED and MPTC

• New York State Education Department (NYSED), Office of the Professions: Must enforce Education Law §§ 7605, 6512, and 6513. The use of unlicensed psychologists in any employment-related evaluation is not a technicality — it is a crime. Investigations and prosecutions must follow.

• Municipal Police Training Council (MPTC): Must enforce its standards requiring that all candidate assessments be lawful, validated, and job-related. If the NYPD refuses compliance, the MPTC must suspend its certification authority until the Department corrects its practices.

C. Municipal Accountability: City Council and Oversight

• New York City Council: Cannot continue rubber-stamping NYPD budgets while ignoring unlawful practices. It has budgetary power and oversight responsibility. No public funds should be appropriated for unlicensed psychological screenings or unvalidated drug testing.

• Independent Oversight Bodies: The Inspector General for the NYPD, Civilian Complaint Review Board, and Comptroller’s Office must coordinate audits, investigations, and enforcement. Oversight without enforcement is complicity.

D. The Courts

The judiciary remains the last line of defense. Courts must:

• Exclude unvalidated scientific evidence under Frye.

• Strike down employment practices that fail UGESP validation requirements.

• Enforce Title VII, § 1983, § 1985, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL against discriminatory and unlawful practices.

• Recognize the continuity between the Boston litigation and the NYPD’s reliance on the same discredited methods.

E. The Public

Finally, the public cannot remain silent. Legacy media may refuse to cover these issues, but the facts are undeniable. Each taxpayer shoulders the cost of settlements. Each community bears the weight of discriminatory practices. And each applicant or officer is entitled to a system governed by law, not insider privilege.

The Bottom Line

The NYPD will never reform itself — left to its own devices, it doubles down on misconduct. The rot is structural, not incidental. Real accountability must come from the outside: federal agencies, state regulators, municipal oversight, and the courts. If those bodies stay silent, the pattern will repeat: denial today, liability tomorrow.

IX. Conclusion: Defiance and Accountability

I wasn’t intimidated as a cop, and I’m not intimidated as a lawyer. I wasn’t corruptible in uniform, and I’m not corruptible in a suit. That hasn’t changed, and it never will. The NYPD can hold as many closed-door meetings as it wants, whispering about how to “expose Eric Sanders.” It doesn’t matter — because I am not the one breaking the law. I am fulfilling my ethical duty as an advocate and counselor at law.

What I have exposed is undeniable:

• Unlicensed psychologists conducting evaluations in direct violation of Education Law §§ 7605, 6512, and 6513.

• Junk-science hair testing (RIAH, EIA, HEIA) that fails both Frye and UGESP, producing racially disparate and scientifically unreliable results.

• A two-tier discipline system where insiders are protected and outsiders sacrificed — a structure that violates Title VII, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL.

The NYPD will never reform itself — left to its own devices, it doubles down on misconduct. The rot is structural, not incidental. Real accountability must come from the outside: federal agencies, state regulators, municipal oversight, and the courts. If those bodies stay silent, the pattern will repeat itself: denial today, liability tomorrow.

And make no mistake: I will not stop. I challenged these unlawful practices inside the Department. I challenge them now in the courts, in the press, and in the court of public opinion. This is not new — it is continuation. The only difference is that now I fight harder, smarter, and with the full weight of the law behind me.

If that bothers the meat eaters at One Police Plaza, too bad. I wasn’t intimidated then, I’m not intimidated now, and I won’t be intimidated tomorrow. The clown show ends when accountability begins.