Executive Summary
In the machinery of civil-service hiring, few institutions wield as much unchecked discretion as the New York City Police Department’s Candidate Assessment Division. Ostensibly tasked with ensuring that only qualified, psychologically sound applicants enter the ranks of the nation’s largest police force, the Division has, over the decades, developed a range of bureaucratic tools to manage the immense flow of candidate files. Among these, the designation known as the “psychological hold” stands out—not because it reflects a careful scientific safeguard, but because it represents the quiet corrosion of both psychology and civil rights.
The “psychological hold” was initially conceived as a protective mechanism. In its purest form, the label was meant to pause a candidate’s progression when legitimate questions about psychological fitness arose. Such a hold would allow licensed psychologists to perform further evaluations, ensuring that public safety was not compromised by admitting individuals suffering from untreated or undisclosed mental illness. On paper, this purpose aligned with statutory definitions of the practice of psychology under New York law and with the NYPD’s broader obligation to vet its recruits responsibly.
In practice, however, the designation mutated. Facing mounting caseloads and internal pressures to clear files, investigators—many of whom were uniformed officers without psychological training—appropriated the “hold” mechanism for an entirely different function: administrative convenience. Rather than marking a file as “awaiting documentation” when a college transcript, driving abstract, or employment verification was missing, investigators recoded the candidate as being on “psychological hold.” This reclassification served two bureaucratic ends: it cleared the investigator’s caseload statistics and transferred the burden into a different tracking system. The cost, however, was borne entirely by the candidate.
Unlike a neutral label such as “pending documents,” the phrase “psychological hold” carries an unmistakable stigma. It suggests that the applicant is mentally unstable, unfit, or otherwise compromised. Once affixed to an official record, the designation does not remain confined within the NYPD’s internal files. It follows candidates into future employment contexts, surfacing in background checks and interagency evaluations. Thus, what began as a clerical shortcut metastasizes into a permanent scar on the applicant’s professional identity.
The harms are not abstract. Candidates placed on psychological hold—without ever being evaluated by a licensed psychologist—have seen offers rescinded from the Fire Department, the Department of Correction, the Port Authority Police, and other law enforcement agencies. In each instance, the candidate was not rejected because of a bona fide mental health concern but because of a false record created by bureaucratic manipulation. The consequences ripple beyond lost jobs. They affect reputations, earning potential, and fundamental liberty interests in pursuing a chosen career.
From a legal perspective, the practice is indefensible. New York Education Law §§ 7601-a, 7605, 6512, and 6513 tightly circumscribe who may practice psychology, issue evaluations, and make determinations regarding mental health. Placing a candidate on “psychological hold” when no licensed psychologist has conducted an evaluation falls squarely within the unlicensed practice of psychology. It constitutes not only statutory violation but also potential criminal conduct under §§ 6512 and 6513. That the mislabeling is done for convenience does not mitigate its illegality.
At the federal level, the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), codified at 29 C.F.R. Part 1607, impose strict requirements on any device used to affect hiring decisions. A psychological hold, whether or not it involves actual clinical review, functions as a selection device. Yet it is neither validated for predictive value nor applied consistently across candidates. This invites disparate-impact liability under Griggs v. Duke Power Co., Albemarle Paper v. Moody, and Ricci v. DeStefano. It also raises due-process concerns: the creation of a stigmatizing government record without procedural safeguards violates established constitutional protections of liberty and reputation.
The psychological hold is thus more than sloppy administration. It is an institutional practice that violates state licensing laws, federal employment regulations, and constitutional due-process rights. It is also emblematic of what might be called “equity theater.” Outwardly, the NYPD presents the hold as evidence of rigorous screening, reassuring the public that candidates are being evaluated with the utmost care. In reality, the designation conceals inefficiency, mismanagement, and systemic disregard for the rights of applicants. It is not science; it is theater—an illusion of diligence masking administrative malpractice.
The broader sociopolitical implications are equally troubling. The misuse of psychological language for bureaucratic ends corrodes trust in both psychology as a discipline and in the integrity of civil-service hiring. It reduces professional evaluation to a rubber stamp, eroding the legitimacy of a process that determines who will wield the power of arrest, the badge, and the gun. Moreover, the practice is part of a larger historical pattern: just as the NYPD once misused sealed records in violation of CPL §§ 160.50 and 160.55, and just as forensic junk science such as bite-mark comparisons once masqueraded as legitimate evidence, the psychological hold represents another episode in the long history of administrative distortions cloaked in the aura of science.
The lessons from history are clear. When institutions exploit scientific or legal language for convenience, the victims are always the individuals whose rights are trampled in the process. And the costs are borne not only by those individuals but by the public, whose trust in the fairness of government erodes further with each revelation of misconduct.
This thought piece will proceed in seven parts. Part I will trace the origins and intended function of the psychological hold. Part II will examine how administrative efficiency was pursued at the expense of individual rights. Part III will analyze the legal framework, focusing on statutory and regulatory violations. Part IV will present case studies, including the experience of Marquis Anderson, to illustrate the tangible harms inflicted. Part V will situate the practice within the broader phenomenon of policy and equity theater. Part VI will draw lessons from historical and comparative practices of administrative misuse of science. Part VII will conclude with concrete recommendations and guardrails, including abolition of the hold absent licensed review, mandatory transparency, UGESP-compliant validation, and independent oversight.
At its core, the argument is simple but profound: bureaucratic convenience cannot justify the creation of false psychological records that stigmatize and derail careers. The NYPD’s use of psychological holds is not a minor technical infraction but a civil-rights violation with systemic consequences. Unless reformed, it will remain another cautionary tale of unvalidated practice disguised as legitimacy—at a profound cost to civil rights, public trust, and the professional integrity of psychology itself.
Part I – Origins and Function of the Psychological Hold
The concept of a “hold” in candidate processing did not emerge in a vacuum. It developed alongside the NYPD’s expansion of its Candidate Assessment Division (CAD), the specialized unit responsible for evaluating thousands of police officer applicants each year. From the outset, candidate processing has combined the mundane—collecting transcripts, verifying driving abstracts, checking references—with the high-stakes work of psychological and medical evaluation. In a system that must balance sheer volume with careful scrutiny, it is unsurprising that the Department sought administrative categories to manage files in flux. Yet the category of “psychological hold” represents not simply a neutral administrative tool, but the deliberate conflation of clerical delay with clinical concern.
The Intended Purpose: A Safeguard for Mental Health
In its ideal form, the psychological hold designation was designed as a pause button. When an applicant presented with indicators of possible psychological instability—whether through responses on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), inconsistencies in a background interview, or red flags identified by a licensed psychologist—the case could be placed “on hold” pending further evaluation. This practice, at least in theory, aligned with New York’s statutory definition of the practice of psychology under Education Law § 7601-a. That section defines psychology as encompassing the observation, description, evaluation, and modification of human behavior, as well as the diagnosis and treatment of mental, nervous, emotional, cognitive, or behavioral disorders. A genuine psychological hold, supported by licensed review, would fall within this statutory domain.
The purpose was protective on two fronts. First, it sought to protect the public: ensuring that only psychologically stable candidates were entrusted with a badge, a firearm, and the power to deprive citizens of liberty. Second, it sought to protect the candidate: avoiding premature disqualification until further assessment clarified whether apparent concerns reflected genuine pathology or benign misunderstanding. When used properly, the hold functioned as a procedural safeguard consistent with professional standards and public expectations.
The Drift into Administrative Tool
But the volume of applicants, combined with bureaucratic pressures, altered the trajectory of this tool. The NYPD processes thousands of candidates annually, each file requiring document collection, background investigation, and psychological screening. Investigators—often uniformed officers with little or no training in psychology—were evaluated on throughput. Clearing files quickly, or at least moving them out of one’s immediate queue, became an operational priority.
Here lies the genesis of the distortion. Missing documents—college transcripts, out-of-state driving records, verification letters—routinely delayed candidate files. In principle, such cases should have been coded neutrally as “awaiting documentation.” That label would have accurately described the status without imputing any clinical dimension. But instead, investigators increasingly transferred such files into the psychological system, marking them “psychological hold.”
The reasons were pragmatic. By coding files this way, investigators reduced their visible backlog. Files coded as psych holds appeared to be under the custody of the Psychological Services Section rather than the investigator’s desk. The clerical burden was thus transformed into an apparent clinical concern. This misclassification was not a matter of isolated error. Over time, it became normalized practice, understood within the Candidate Assessment Division as an accepted method of managing caseload pressure.
The Misuse of Psychological Language
What makes this drift particularly pernicious is the misuse of psychological language. The term “psychological hold” is not neutral. It suggests an unresolved question about mental fitness. For candidates, it conveys a presumption of instability, however unjustified. For outside institutions reviewing NYPD records—other law enforcement agencies, federal security clearances, even civilian employers—the label functions as a scarlet letter.
This is not merely semantic inflation. By cloaking missing documents in the garb of psychology, the Department transforms administrative delay into clinical suspicion. It weaponizes language against candidates, branding them with stigma that has nothing to do with actual mental health and everything to do with bureaucratic expediency.
Historical Echoes of Administrative Shortcuts
The NYPD’s repurposing of the psychological hold has echoes in other domains of policing where administrative shortcuts masqueraded as professional rigor. Consider the Department’s past misuse of sealed records under CPL §§ 160.50 and 160.55. Designed to shield individuals from collateral consequences once charges were dismissed, sealed records were nonetheless routinely accessed and used in hiring and disciplinary contexts. Similarly, consider the reliance on hair microscopy and bite-mark comparison in forensic science—techniques that cloaked themselves in scientific authority but ultimately proved unreliable. In each case, institutional convenience and inertia triumphed over legality and accuracy, with devastating consequences for those caught in the system.
The psychological hold belongs in this lineage. It represents the quiet erosion of professional boundaries, where a tool designed for a narrow, protective function becomes an all-purpose filing cabinet for bureaucrats under pressure.
The Result: False Records, Real Harms
The result of this drift is the creation of false records with real consequences. A candidate whose file is incomplete for want of a transcript does not suffer from mental instability. Yet when the file is marked “psychological hold,” the official record suggests otherwise. That record can and does follow the candidate into other employment contexts. It may be disclosed to agencies such as the FDNY, the Department of Correction, or the Port Authority, where it functions as an informal disqualification.
The harm is twofold. First, the candidate suffers reputational injury, branded as psychologically suspect without basis. Second, the candidate suffers tangible economic harm: loss of job offers, derailed career paths, foreclosed opportunities. In civil-rights terms, this is not an incidental by-product of administration. It is a systemic violation of individual rights caused by institutional misuse of professional language.
The Statutory Disconnect
The gulf between the intended and actual use of the psychological hold cannot be overstated. Under New York Education Law § 7605, limited permits to practice psychology may be issued only under the supervision of a licensed psychologist and only for narrowly defined statutory purposes. These permits are strictly temporary and tethered to professional oversight. There is no exemption carved out for the New York City Police Department—or for any law enforcement agency—that would allow investigators or administrative staff to make independent psychological determinations. Sections 6512 and 6513 of the Education Law further sharpen this point: they criminalize the unauthorized practice of a licensed profession and the aiding and abetting of such practice. Thus, when NYPD investigators—who are neither licensed psychologists nor supervised under § 7605—place candidates on “psychological hold,” they are engaging in conduct that falls squarely within the statutory prohibition. The fact that these determinations are driven by clerical convenience rather than bona fide clinical judgment does not dilute the violation; it only underscores the recklessness.
This practice is also directly incompatible with the Professional Policing Act of 2021 (PPA) and the implementing rules promulgated by the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS). Part BBB of Chapter 59 of the Laws of 2021, codified through 9 NYCRR Parts 6000 and 6056, mandates uniform hiring standards across every police agency in New York State. These standards explicitly require psychological testing by a qualified psychiatrist or psychologist, after a conditional offer of employment, as a prerequisite to appointment. The law’s purpose is to ensure that all agencies—large or small, urban or rural, including the NYPD—apply the same professional standards when determining psychological fitness. The emergency rulemaking notice of January 19, 2022 made clear that the NYPD’s historical carve-outs were ended: “[t]hese regulations are intended to ensure that all persons appointed to the position of police officer are held to the same hiring standards, and promote professional police services.” In plain terms, the legislature and DCJS deliberately closed the loopholes that once allowed the NYPD to operate outside statewide standards.
Against this statutory backdrop, the NYPD’s reliance on unlicensed personnel to impose a “psychological hold” is indefensible. It is not merely a technical irregularity but a statutory breach on two levels. First, it contravenes Education Law by allowing unlicensed personnel to make psychological determinations. Second, it violates the Professional Policing Act by undermining the very uniformity the legislature mandated in response to national concern over police misconduct and accountability. A designation intended to safeguard mental health has been co-opted as an administrative dumping ground, in direct violation of both professional licensing law and statewide police standards.
Far from being a benign bureaucratic quirk, the misuse of the psychological hold represents institutional defiance of statutory command. It erodes the regulatory framework designed to ensure that psychological evaluations are grounded in professional expertise, not administrative expedience. In doing so, it undermines both public safety and the civil rights of candidates, exposing the Department to legal liability and corroding the integrity of the statewide professional policing regime.
A System Built on Illusion
The origins and function of the psychological hold thus reveal a system built on illusion. To the public, it appears that the NYPD is exercising heightened care, scrutinizing candidates with professional rigor. To the candidate, it appears that his or her file is subject to scientific review. In reality, the designation often masks nothing more than a missing transcript or delayed driving record. The illusion benefits the institution—it preserves the appearance of diligence, reduces visible backlogs, and shields investigators from scrutiny. But it does so at the direct expense of candidates, whose rights are compromised and whose records are indelibly stained.
In short, what began as a safeguard has become a weapon of convenience. The psychological hold no longer functions as a neutral pause for legitimate mental health concerns. It functions as a bureaucratic crutch, one that distorts science, violates statutory boundaries, and imposes unwarranted stigma on those who seek to serve.
Part II – Administrative Efficiency vs. Individual Rights
The transformation of the “psychological hold” from a narrowly tailored safeguard into an all-purpose administrative device cannot be understood without examining the pressures within the Candidate Assessment Division itself. Every year, thousands of applicants cycle through the NYPD’s hiring pipeline. Each file must be vetted for background, education, employment history, driving records, and criminal checks, and then routed through medical and psychological screening. The scale is staggering, and the internal mandate clear: keep the files moving. Investigators, often drawn from the ranks of uniformed officers rather than trained human-resource professionals, quickly discovered that the “psych hold” designation could relieve their caseload burdens. The bureaucratic logic was simple: better to move a file out of one’s active queue under the guise of psychological review than to let it linger in limbo marked only as “awaiting documents.”
Caseload Pressure and the Bureaucratic Incentive
Investigators in the Candidate Assessment Division are judged on throughput—the number of files advanced, coded, or otherwise moved along the system. Like other civil-service offices, metrics of productivity are often blunt instruments. An investigator with a large number of “pending” files appears inefficient, while one who transfers files into another category appears diligent. The psychological hold became a bureaucratic escape hatch. Rather than chase down missing transcripts or driving abstracts—tasks that often required repeated calls, faxes, or requests to outside institutions—investigators coded the file as “on hold” and shifted the burden elsewhere.
This practice may have eased internal reporting, but it was built on deception. It misrepresented the true state of the file, creating the illusion of psychological concern where none existed. That misrepresentation carried forward into the candidate’s permanent record, creating a stain with consequences far beyond the confines of the Candidate Assessment Division.
The Language of Stigma
Administrative convenience, in this context, came at the expense of individual dignity and civil rights. The term “psychological hold” is not neutral. It suggests instability, incapacity, or at minimum unresolved questions about a candidate’s mental health. Unlike “awaiting documents,” which signals only an incomplete file, “psychological hold” brands the candidate with suspicion. The choice of terminology is crucial: it weaponizes clinical language against individuals who never exhibited any clinical concerns.
In bureaucratic systems, words matter. Labels become data, and data become decisions. Once a file is coded “psychological hold,” that designation becomes part of the official record. It can surface in background checks, disclosures to other agencies, or internal notes circulated to decisionmakers. A candidate who simply failed to provide a transcript in time is now tagged with the implication of mental instability. This is not merely clerical shorthand—it is reputational harm inflicted by the state.
False Records as Civil-Rights Violations
The creation of false government records is not a trivial matter. Courts have long recognized that stigmatizing information placed in official files, when disseminated or used to deny opportunities, implicates due process rights. A candidate’s liberty interest in pursuing employment as a police officer, firefighter, or correction officer is directly impacted by a false psychological designation.
This is not merely theoretical. Insider accounts confirm that “psychological hold” files were disclosed to other agencies such as the FDNY, Department of Correction, and Port Authority Police. In those contexts, the designation functioned as an informal disqualification. Agencies assumed that if the NYPD had placed a candidate on psychological hold, there must have been serious cause. Offers were withdrawn, applications denied, and careers derailed—not because of any actual psychological finding, but because of paperwork manipulation.
In this sense, administrative efficiency has been purchased at the cost of constitutional injury. Candidates are deprived of fair process when stigmatizing records are created without notice, hearing, or opportunity to contest the designation. They are deprived of equal employment opportunity when unvalidated, discriminatory practices distort the hiring pipeline. And they are deprived of statutory protection when unlicensed personnel practice psychology under the guise of administrative coding.
The Disconnect Between Administrative Needs and Individual Rights
What emerges is a profound disconnect between the institution’s need to process files and the individual’s right to be judged accurately, lawfully, and fairly. The NYPD may justify the psychological hold as a necessary tool for managing volume. But constitutional law, civil-rights doctrine, and statutory licensing requirements leave no room for administrative convenience to trump individual rights.
The Professional Policing Act of 2021 (PPA) underscores this point. By mandating uniform psychological standards across all agencies, the Act reflects the legislature’s intent that psychological determinations be real, professional, and consistent—not bureaucratic placeholders. When the NYPD recodes missing transcripts as psychological concerns, it undermines the uniformity the law was designed to ensure. It also undermines public trust, presenting an outward façade of rigorous screening while concealing the arbitrary reality.
The Role of Paperwork Manipulation
At its core, the misuse of the psychological hold is an act of paperwork manipulation. It is a bureaucratic sleight of hand: transform “awaiting documents” into “psychological hold,” shift the file, and cleanse the investigator’s caseload. But this paperwork manipulation is not harmless. It has cascading effects:
For the candidate – it creates a false stigma that damages reputation and employment prospects.
For other agencies – it supplies unreliable data, leading to flawed decisions about candidate fitness.
For the public – it corrodes confidence in the integrity of police hiring, reinforcing the perception that the system is arbitrary, opaque, and unfair.
This manipulation is particularly insidious because it cloaks itself in the authority of psychology. Administrative delays are normal; every large system experiences them. But by rebranding delays as psychological holds, the NYPD converts routine bureaucracy into false science, lending undeserved weight to its internal mismanagement.
The Broader Civil-Rights Consequences
The civil-rights implications of this practice are significant. Under Title VII, unvalidated employment practices that have disparate impact are unlawful unless justified by business necessity. A psychological hold system that disproportionately affects candidates of color, women, or other protected classes—without validation or consistency—falls squarely within disparate-impact liability. Moreover, the creation of false psychological records raises equal-protection concerns: candidates are not being treated equally when clerical delays are recoded as clinical suspicion.
Due process is equally implicated. The “stigma-plus” doctrine, developed in cases such as Paul v. Davis and Valmonte v. Bane, recognizes that government-created stigmatizing records that impair liberty interests require procedural safeguards. The NYPD provides no such safeguards. Candidates are not notified that they have been placed on psychological hold for non-psychological reasons. They are not given hearings to contest the designation. They are not afforded opportunities to correct the record. The absence of process transforms bureaucratic convenience into constitutional violation.
Efficiency Cannot Trump Rights
Administrative efficiency is not unimportant. The public expects that the NYPD will process candidates promptly and ensure that officers are ready for duty. But efficiency cannot be purchased at the expense of legality. The rule of law requires that efficiency yield when it collides with statutory licensing regimes, federal civil-rights protections, and constitutional due process. The state cannot create false records for its own convenience, no matter how pressing the backlog.
In this light, the psychological hold is not merely an example of bureaucratic sloppiness. It is a case study in how administrative systems can drift into rights-violating practices when oversight is absent and incentives are misaligned. By prioritizing caseload clearance over candidate fairness, the NYPD has weaponized paperwork against the very individuals it claims to evaluate with scientific care.
Part III – Legal Framework
The misuse of “psychological holds” by the New York City Police Department cannot be dismissed as a harmless administrative device. It represents a convergence of statutory violations, regulatory noncompliance, and constitutional infractions. To understand the gravity of the practice, it is necessary to parse the legal framework governing the practice of psychology in New York, the uniform standards imposed by the Professional Policing Act of 2021 (PPA), the requirements of federal civil-rights law and employment regulations, and the constitutional protections against stigmatizing government records.
A. New York Education Law: The Unauthorized Practice of Psychology
At the state level, the starting point is the New York Education Law, which establishes the boundaries of professional practice for psychology.
1. Defining the Practice of Psychology (§ 7601-a)
Section 7601-a provides a sweeping definition of what it means to practice psychology. The statute encompasses the “observation, description, evaluation, interpretation and modification of human behavior” as well as the “diagnosis and treatment of mental, nervous, emotional, cognitive or behavioral disorders.” In other words, psychology is not limited to therapy or counseling; it includes any evaluative act that purports to assess mental or emotional fitness. Placing a candidate on a “psychological hold” squarely falls within this definition. The very act of designating a file as requiring psychological attention is, by statute, the practice of psychology.
2. Limited Permits (§ 7605)
Section 7605 allows the New York State Education Department (NYSED) to issue limited permits to practice psychology, but only under specific conditions: the permittee must work under the supervision of a licensed psychologist, the permit is valid for twelve months (renewable up to two additional years), and it is typically used by graduates completing supervised postdoctoral experience or by out-of-state license holders seeking New York licensure. Crucially, there is no exemption for the NYPD or for law enforcement agencies generally. Unlike physicians or dentists who may practice within certain state or municipal institutions under limited statutory carve-outs, police investigators have no legal authority to conduct or simulate psychological evaluations.
3. Unauthorized Practice and Criminal Liability (§§ 6512 and 6513)
The consequences of violating these boundaries are severe.
§ 6512 makes it a felony to practice or offer to practice a profession without a license.
§ 6513 makes it a crime, punishable as a misdemeanor, to knowingly aid or abet such unlicensed practice.
When investigators place a candidate on “psychological hold” without supervision by a licensed psychologist, they engage in unauthorized practice. When supervisors permit or encourage this practice, they aid and abet unlawful conduct. Thus, the NYPD’s systemic use of unlicensed personnel to assign psychological labels exposes not only the individual investigator but the Department itself to criminal liability.
B. The Professional Policing Act of 2021 and DCJS Regulations
The state legislature has reinforced these professional boundaries with the Professional Policing Act of 2021 (PPA), enacted as Part BBB of Chapter 59 of the Laws of 2021. This statute mandated uniform hiring standards across all New York police agencies, administered through the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS). The regulations (9 NYCRR Parts 6000 and 6056, effective December 31, 2021) underscore three key points relevant here:
Uniformity of Standards. The PPA eliminates historic carve-outs that once allowed the NYPD to operate outside the Municipal Police Training Council’s regulations. Psychological evaluations must now meet the same standards across every law enforcement agency.
Licensed Review Required. Part 6000.11 requires that psychological examinations of candidates be conducted by a qualified psychiatrist or psychologist after a conditional offer of employment. There is no provision for investigators, administrators, or other non-licensed personnel to make psychological determinations.
Correction of Inaccuracies. DCJS is authorized to correct any material inaccuracy in an agency’s reporting that affects an officer’s certification. This safeguard reflects legislative recognition that inaccurate or misleading records can have catastrophic consequences for candidates.
The NYPD’s practice of recoding administrative delays as “psychological holds” collides head-on with the PPA. It creates records that are not only unauthorized under Education Law but also inconsistent with the uniform hiring standards mandated by state statute. The very purpose of the PPA—restoring public trust in policing by ensuring professionalism and accountability—cannot be squared with the NYPD’s use of false psychological designations as clerical shortcuts.
C. Federal Law: UGESP and Title VII
The misuse of psychological holds is not merely a state-law violation. It also contravenes federal employment law.
1. UGESP (29 C.F.R. Part 1607).
The Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP) require that any employment practice used to screen candidates must be job-related and validated. A “psychological hold,” whether or not it involves an actual evaluation, functions as a selection device. It delays or prevents appointment, and it influences interagency hiring decisions. Yet the practice has never been validated for reliability or predictive value. It is not grounded in empirical evidence, nor has it been shown to measure traits relevant to the performance of police duties. By definition, it fails UGESP’s validation requirement.
2. Title VII and Disparate Impact.
Under Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971), Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody (1975), and Ricci v. DeStefano (2009), employment practices that disproportionately exclude members of protected classes, without proof of business necessity, violate Title VII. If “psychological holds” disproportionately affect candidates of color, women, or other protected groups—as insider reports suggest—then the NYPD faces disparate-impact liability. The fact that these holds are often based on paperwork delays, which themselves may correlate with socioeconomic disadvantage, compounds the risk of discriminatory outcomes.
3. The Pretext of Business Necessity.
Even if the NYPD were to claim business necessity, such a defense would fail. There is no legitimate business justification for branding a candidate as psychologically suspect when the only issue is missing paperwork. Unlike validated cognitive or personality assessments, the hold is not a tool designed to predict job performance. It is an administrative fiction.
D. Constitutional Protections: Due Process and Liberty Interests
The constitutional dimension adds a final layer of illegality. The Fourteenth Amendment protects individuals from government action that deprives them of liberty or property without due process of law. Courts have recognized that stigmatizing government records can trigger a “stigma-plus” claim when reputational harm is coupled with a tangible loss of opportunity.
1. Stigma-Plus Doctrine.
In Paul v. Davis (1976), the Supreme Court held that reputation alone is not a protected liberty interest, but when stigma is combined with alteration of legal status or denial of employment opportunities, due process is implicated. The Second Circuit elaborated in Valmonte v. Bane (1994), holding that placement on a government registry that impaired employment prospects constituted a due-process violation.
Psychological holds fit squarely within this framework. The stigma of being flagged as psychologically suspect is compounded by the denial of employment opportunities in law enforcement and related agencies. Candidates lose tangible prospects because of a government-created record, without notice or hearing.
2. Absence of Procedural Safeguards.
Due process requires, at minimum, notice and an opportunity to be heard before stigmatizing information is placed in official records. The NYPD provides neither. Candidates are not informed that their files have been placed on psychological hold for non-psychological reasons. They are not given hearings to contest the designation. They are not afforded any mechanism to correct the record. This total absence of process magnifies the constitutional violation.
3. Liberty to Pursue One’s Profession.
Beyond reputation, courts have recognized a broader liberty interest in pursuing one’s chosen profession. When false psychological records foreclose opportunities in policing, corrections, and firefighting, the state has interfered with that liberty interest. Absent procedural safeguards, this interference is unconstitutional.
E. Civil Liability Exposure
The convergence of state and federal violations creates substantial exposure for the City of New York. Potential claims include:
Unauthorized Practice of Psychology. Violations of Education Law §§ 6512 and 6513 by individual investigators and supervisors who engage in, or facilitate, unlicensed psychological determinations.
Violation of the PPA and DCJS Regulations. Noncompliance with 9 NYCRR Parts 6000 and 6056, which mandate uniform hiring standards, including psychological reviews conducted only by licensed professionals.
Title VII Disparate Impact. Civil-rights liability under federal law for use of unvalidated and discriminatory screening practices, contrary to Griggs, Albemarle, and Ricci.
Due Process Violations (§ 1983). Section 1983 claims premised on the stigma-plus doctrine, where false psychological records deprive candidates of liberty interests in pursuing public employment without notice or hearing. Because the misuse of psychological holds is systemic and institutionalized, not isolated misconduct, the City also faces Monell liability for maintaining an unconstitutional policy or custom in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). Independent liability under N.Y. Exec. Law Article 15 for discriminatory and arbitrary employment practices that create disparate impact or deny equal opportunity in civil-service hiring.
New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). Broader liability under Title 8 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, which requires only that a candidate be treated “less well” on the basis of protected characteristics—a standard more expansive than Title VII or the NYSHRL.
Defamation and Other State-Law Tort Claims. False psychological records, particularly when disseminated to other agencies, may give rise to defamation, negligence, or other common-law claims, compounding the City’s liability exposure.
F. The Broader Legal and Policy Conflict
At bottom, the NYPD’s reliance on psychological holds is irreconcilable with the legal framework designed to regulate psychology, ensure uniform police hiring standards, and protect civil rights. The practice:
Violates state licensing law by allowing unlicensed personnel to practice psychology.
Defies the Professional Policing Act of 2021 by undermining uniform psychological standards.
Contravenes federal employment law by deploying an unvalidated, discriminatory selection device.
Breaches constitutional protections by creating stigmatizing records without due process.
Administrative convenience cannot justify these violations. Efficiency may be a bureaucratic goal, but legality is a constitutional mandate. The statutory and regulatory framework exists precisely to prevent the kind of arbitrary, rights-violating practices exemplified by the psychological hold.
Part IV – Case Studies and Harms
The illegality of the NYPD’s psychological hold practice is best understood not only through statutes and regulations but also through its real-world consequences. Every designation placed in a candidate’s file creates a legal and professional record. When that designation is misused, as with “psychological holds,” the harm extends beyond paperwork. It becomes a systemic barrier to employment, a stigmatizing label that travels across agencies, and a civil-rights violation with measurable impact.
A. Marquis Anderson: Structural Weaponization of Evaluation
The case of Marquis Anderson underscores how psychological holds become instruments of structural harm. Anderson was placed on a psychological hold even though no licensed psychologist evaluated him under N.Y. Educ. Law §§ 7601-a and 7605. Instead, unlicensed personnel applied a designation that implied unresolved mental-health concerns, despite the lack of lawful authority or clinical basis.
That designation did not remain confined to the NYPD. Once recorded, it carried forward into Anderson’s interactions with other public-sector employers. Agencies that received background information treated the NYPD’s “psychological hold” as presumptively valid, effectively blacklisting him from opportunities he would otherwise have been qualified to pursue.
The legal issues raised by Anderson’s case are layered:
Statutory Violations. The hold represents the unauthorized practice of psychology by unlicensed personnel.
Constitutional Concerns. A stigmatizing government record was created without notice, hearing, or opportunity to correct — violating due-process standards.
Civil-Rights Implications. The false designation produced tangible employment harm, amounting to discrimination in violation of federal and state law.
Institutional Liability. Because this practice is embedded in the NYPD’s process, it exposes the City to § 1983 liability, including Monell claims, as well as liability under Title VII, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL.
Anderson’s case is emblematic of a broader pattern: psychological language, misapplied by non-professionals, was weaponized against him in ways that statutes and regulations were explicitly designed to prevent.
B. Insider Accounts: Holds for Administrative Delays
Anderson’s experience is not unique. Insider accounts reveal that the Candidate Assessment Division routinely used psychological holds to manage files delayed by missing documents, rather than to flag genuine psychological concerns.
Academic Transcripts. In several instances, candidates were placed on hold simply because their universities had not yet provided official transcripts.
Driving Records. Delays in receiving DMV abstracts led to “psychological hold” codes, even though no mental-health evaluation was performed.
Employment Verification. Failure by former employers to respond promptly to reference checks resulted in candidates being stigmatized with the same hold designation.
These insider examples demonstrate how administrative delays were rebranded as clinical concerns. The hold became a warehouse category for incomplete files, but one cloaked in psychological terminology that carried disproportionate stigma.
C. Collateral Consequences Across Agencies
The ripple effects of these holds extended far beyond the NYPD. Because law-enforcement and civil-service agencies share background data, the false designation tainted opportunities elsewhere:
FDNY. Candidates flagged as “psychological hold” by the NYPD were rejected from firefighter positions despite no evaluation by a licensed psychologist.
Department of Correction. Applicants similarly disqualified based on NYPD records, with the hold treated as an indicator of instability.
Port Authority Police. The shared stigma prevented otherwise eligible candidates from securing employment.
In each instance, what began as a file-management tactic within the NYPD metastasized into a career-ending barrier across the public sector.
D. Stigma and Liberty Interests
The impact of being placed on psychological hold is not merely procedural — it is personal and constitutional. Candidates branded with false psychological records experience stigma that affects their reputations and self-worth. Families struggle to reconcile the candidate’s stability with the government’s implication of instability.
From a constitutional perspective, these harms implicate the “stigma-plus” doctrine under the Fourteenth Amendment. A false, stigmatizing designation, when coupled with denial of employment opportunities, infringes liberty interests. Candidates like Anderson and others were not only labeled unfairly but were denied the chance to pursue careers in law enforcement and related fields.
E. Mapping Harms to Legal Exposure
The harms suffered by candidates correspond directly to the City’s legal exposure:
Unauthorized Practice of Psychology. Candidates were harmed because non-licensed personnel engaged in acts reserved for licensed psychologists.
PPA and DCJS Violations. The misuse of holds undermined statewide standards requiring licensed, uniform psychological evaluations.
Title VII / UGESP. Because these holds disproportionately impacted certain candidates — particularly those from underrepresented groups more likely to face administrative delays — they carry disparate-impact liability.
§ 1983 and Monell. The systemic nature of the practice exposes the City to liability for unconstitutional customs under Monell.
NYSHRL / NYCHRL. Both statutes provide independent causes of action for arbitrary, discriminatory, or less-well treatment in hiring.
State-Law Torts. Dissemination of false psychological records supports claims for defamation and related common-law remedies.
These legal frameworks convert lived harm into actionable liability.
F. The Human Cost of Convenience
At its core, the misuse of psychological holds illustrates how bureaucratic shortcuts impose human costs. What appeared internally as a convenient solution to caseload pressures resulted in careers foreclosed, reputations destroyed, and rights violated. For candidates, the hold was not a pause — it was an invisible wall blocking entry into public service.
The absence of any corrective process made the injury worse. Candidates were rarely notified of the basis for the hold, much less given a chance to contest or correct it. This lack of transparency ensured that stigma persisted unchallenged, compounding harm while shielding the Department from scrutiny.
G. An Institutional Pattern
The recurring misuse of psychological holds demonstrates a pattern, not a series of isolated mistakes. The sequence is predictable: administrative delays are recoded as psychological concerns, files are shifted into the hold category, stigma attaches, and opportunities are denied across agencies. This pattern reflects institutionalized misconduct, sustained over time, and tolerated as part of the NYPD’s candidate-processing culture.
Conclusion
Section IV shows the human dimension of statutory and constitutional violations. The “psychological hold” is not simply a technical mislabeling. It is a mechanism of exclusion that has cost individuals like Marquis Anderson and many others their professional futures. By weaponizing clinical terminology for administrative purposes, the NYPD created stigmatizing records that ripple through civil-service systems, inflicting reputational, economic, and constitutional harm.
The pattern is unmistakable: administrative convenience was prioritized over lawful process, at the expense of candidates’ rights. The result is a civil-rights injury with both human and institutional consequences.
Part V – Policy Theater and Equity Theater
The NYPD’s reliance on “psychological holds” is not simply a matter of administrative sloppiness. It is part of a broader phenomenon: the use of performance, rather than substance, to project legitimacy. In the world of public institutions, particularly law enforcement, the appearance of fairness and professionalism often substitutes for reality. This phenomenon can be understood as policy theater and, more specifically, equity theater. The former refers to institutional practices that create the illusion of sound policy while masking dysfunction. The latter refers to practices that cloak discriminatory or arbitrary systems in the language of fairness and inclusion. The psychological hold exemplifies both.
A. The Facade of Psychological Rigor
To the public and to political overseers, the NYPD’s use of psychological screening conveys diligence. City Hall can tell constituents that every candidate undergoes careful psychological evaluation. Albany can reassure voters that police officers are being selected with the utmost caution. The Department itself can point to its Candidate Assessment Division as proof of its professionalism.
But the reality is different. Files marked “psychological hold” are often nothing more than incomplete administrative packets — transcripts not yet received, driving records delayed, references unreturned. No licensed psychologist has reviewed them. No statutory authority supports the designation. Yet the label “psychological hold” creates the illusion of scientific review. It allows the NYPD to claim rigor while practicing expedience.
This is classic policy theater: an institutional performance designed to placate oversight bodies and the public, while concealing underlying dysfunction.
B. Equity Theater: The Language of Fairness Without Substance
The psychological hold also functions as equity theater. By applying the same label across many files, the NYPD presents the image of uniformity — every candidate is treated according to the same professional standard. But the uniformity is an illusion. Candidates are not held because of genuine psychological concern. They are held because of paperwork.
This kind of false equity is dangerous. It allows the Department to claim that it is treating all candidates fairly while in fact disadvantaging those who face administrative barriers. Candidates from marginalized backgrounds, who may have less access to responsive universities, employers, or agencies to provide documents, are more likely to suffer delays. The misuse of psychological holds thus reproduces inequities under the guise of neutrality.
The result is an “equity theater” in which discriminatory outcomes are masked by a façade of equal treatment. The NYPD can point to the uniform label of “psychological hold” and insist that all candidates were treated the same, while ignoring the disparate impact of the practice.
C. City Hall: Oversight by Silence
City Hall bears responsibility for perpetuating this theater. Budgets for candidate assessment, including psychological screening, are approved annually. Mayoral administrations — including the current one — present these budgets as investments in fair and professional hiring. Yet few questions are asked about how the money is spent or whether licensed psychologists are consistently involved. The absence of scrutiny allows the NYPD to continue using psychological holds as administrative placeholders without fear of political consequence.
The silence of City Hall is not neutrality. It is complicity. By failing to inquire into the misuse of statutory terms and professional designations, municipal leaders help maintain the illusion of rigor. The public sees funding for psychological screening and assumes candidates are being evaluated by professionals. The truth — that many are stigmatized without ever seeing a licensed psychologist — remains hidden.
D. Albany: Reform Without Enforcement
The state legislature has already acted to prevent precisely this kind of misconduct. The Professional Policing Act of 2021 (PPA) and the implementing DCJS regulations require uniform psychological standards and prohibit carve-outs for the NYPD. On paper, Albany has delivered reform. But enforcement has lagged.
Despite the clear mandates of 9 NYCRR Part 6000, the NYPD continues to allow unlicensed personnel to assign psychological labels. The DCJS has authority to correct inaccuracies in certification records, yet there is little evidence of active auditing or correction when false holds are reported. The gap between law and practice illustrates the limits of legislative reform without oversight. Albany passed the PPA to end precisely this kind of institutional evasion, but without enforcement, the statute becomes part of the theater — a performance of reform that masks continuing abuse.
E. One Police Plaza: Institutional Incentives for Misuse
Within the NYPD itself, the misuse of psychological holds is incentivized by internal pressures. Investigators are rewarded for clearing files quickly. Supervisors are rewarded for maintaining throughput. The “psych hold” category provides an easy mechanism for both. By shifting files into a different classification, investigators appear efficient, supervisors report progress, and the Candidate Assessment Division looks effective.
These institutional incentives ensure the persistence of misuse. Even if individual investigators know that labeling missing documents as psychological concerns is unlawful, the structure of performance metrics rewards the behavior. The culture of One Police Plaza sustains the theater because it serves bureaucratic self-interest.
F. Public Trust and the Corrosion of Science
The broader cost of this theater is the corrosion of public trust — both in the NYPD and in psychology as a discipline. When the public learns that “psychological holds” were used not for mental health but for paperwork, confidence in the integrity of police hiring evaporates. Candidates themselves come to view psychology not as a science but as a bureaucratic weapon.
This distrust has consequences. Communities skeptical of law enforcement see further evidence that the system is arbitrary and unfair. Licensed psychologists, whose professional authority is misappropriated, find their field diminished in the eyes of candidates and the public. The misuse of psychological terminology for administrative ends degrades both policing and psychology.
G. Theater as a Shield Against Accountability
The greatest danger of policy and equity theater is that it shields institutions from accountability. By presenting the appearance of fairness, the NYPD diverts scrutiny from its failures. City Hall can claim oversight, Albany can claim reform, and the Department can claim professionalism — all while candidates suffer under false psychological labels.
This shield is not accidental. It is part of a long institutional pattern in which the NYPD substitutes appearances for substance. Just as the misuse of sealed records was once justified as a matter of public safety, and just as forensic “junk science” was once justified as a matter of investigative necessity, the psychological hold is justified as a matter of administrative management. Each justification is a performance. Each masks a violation.
Conclusion
The NYPD’s use of psychological holds is not merely a violation of statutes and constitutional rights. It is a performance staged for the benefit of political overseers and the public. It is policy theater masquerading as careful screening, and equity theater masquerading as fairness.
But theater cannot substitute for legality. Administrative convenience, dressed in the language of science, cannot justify stigmatizing candidates with false records. Unless the theater is exposed and dismantled, the misuse of psychological holds will remain another act in a long-running play of institutional evasion — performed at profound cost to civil rights, public trust, and professional integrity.
Part VI – Lessons from History and Comparative Practices
The misuse of psychological holds is not an isolated bureaucratic quirk. It belongs to a long tradition of institutions cloaking administrative expedience in the language of science, fairness, or necessity. By situating the NYPD’s practice in historical context, the pattern becomes clear: when unchecked, agencies will distort law and science to preserve power, efficiency, or convenience—often at the expense of individual rights.
A. The Sealed Records Parallel
One of the clearest parallels can be drawn to the NYPD’s historic misuse of sealed records. Under CPL §§ 160.50 and 160.55, criminal cases dismissed or terminated in a defendant’s favor must be sealed, ensuring the individual is shielded from collateral consequences. The purpose is explicit: a sealed record is treated as though it never occurred, preventing stigmatization and discrimination in employment, licensing, and beyond.
Yet for years, the NYPD accessed and used sealed records in background checks and disciplinary proceedings. Applicants were denied employment, and officers were disciplined, based on records that the law required be treated as nonexistent. Courts repeatedly admonished the Department for this misuse, but the practice persisted, defended under the guise of “public safety.”
The psychological hold mirrors this abuse. Just as sealed records were misapplied to create a permanent mark of suspicion, psychological holds brand candidates as unstable without lawful basis. Both practices exploit legal language to create bureaucratic tools of exclusion, while ignoring the statutes designed to prevent precisely such misuse.
B. The Legacy of Junk Forensic Science
The misuse of scientific language in policing is not limited to administrative records. The courtroom has seen its own share of distortions, most notoriously in the acceptance of junk forensic science.
For decades, techniques such as microscopic hair comparison, bite-mark analysis, and even certain arson investigation methods were presented as reliable science. Prosecutors introduced them as evidence, juries accepted them as truth, and courts admitted them with little scrutiny. Only later did rigorous studies reveal that these methods lacked validity and produced staggering error rates. Wrongful convictions followed.
The parallel to psychological holds is striking. In both cases, the veneer of science was used to give weight to practices that lacked empirical foundation. Just as hair microscopy masqueraded as reliable science, the “psychological hold” masquerades as a genuine clinical determination. In both, the institution benefits—securing convictions or clearing caseloads—while individuals bear the cost through wrongful convictions or lost careers.
C. Administrative Distortions Masquerading as Science
At the core of these practices is a common thread: administrative distortions cloaked in scientific legitimacy. Institutions under pressure—whether to clear cases, secure convictions, or manage backlogs—turn to shortcuts. To avoid scrutiny, those shortcuts are wrapped in the language of science or law.
The danger is profound. When science is distorted for administrative ends, the damage is not only to individuals but also to public trust in both the institution and the discipline misused. The misuse of sealed records eroded confidence in criminal justice protections. Junk forensic science eroded confidence in the courts. Psychological holds now threaten to erode confidence in both civil-service hiring and psychology itself.
Part VII – Recommendations and Guardrails
Exposing the illegality of psychological holds is only half the task. To restore public trust and protect civil rights, reforms must be structural, enforceable, and transparent. Several guardrails are essential.
A. Abolish Psychological Holds Absent Licensed Review
The first and most fundamental reform is straightforward: the “psychological hold” designation must be abolished unless supported by a written evaluation from a licensed psychologist. Unlicensed investigators cannot make psychological determinations under Education Law §§ 7601-a and 7605. Any file delayed by missing documents should be coded as “administrative hold” or “pending documentation,” not mislabeled as a psychological matter.
B. Require Transparency and Audit Trails
Every candidate deserves to know the exact reason for any hold on their file. Agencies must create audit trails documenting:
Who placed the hold,
The reason for the hold (e.g., missing transcript, pending evaluation), and
Whether a licensed professional was involved.
Candidates should receive notice of the hold and have a right to challenge inaccuracies through a clear administrative process. Without transparency, the stigma of false psychological labeling will persist unchecked.
C. Mandate UGESP-Compliant Validation
Under UGESP (29 C.F.R. Part 1607), every selection device must be validated for reliability and job-relatedness. The NYPD must subject all psychological screening practices—including any use of hold designations—to validation studies demonstrating predictive value and nondiscrimination. Without validation, the practice violates federal law and exposes the City to Title VII liability.
D. Independent Oversight
The NYPD cannot be trusted to police itself on this issue. Independent oversight is essential. Potential mechanisms include:
New York State Education Department (NYSED): empowered to investigate unlicensed practice of psychology.
Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS): authorized under the Professional Policing Act of 2021 to correct inaccuracies in police certification records.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC): responsible for enforcing UGESP and Title VII compliance.
Civilian Commission: established to audit psychological assessments and ensure accountability.
Oversight bodies must be empowered not only to review practices but also to impose sanctions for violations.
E. Legislative Clarification
Although existing statutes already prohibit the misuse of psychological holds, legislative clarification would reinforce these protections. The Legislature could expressly prohibit the use of psychological designations by non-licensed personnel in any police or civil-service hiring context, impose penalties for false reporting, and mandate annual reporting to DCJS on the use of psychological evaluations.
F. Cultural Change in the Candidate Assessment Division
Finally, reform must address culture as well as law. As long as investigators are evaluated primarily on throughput, the incentive to misuse psychological holds will remain. Performance metrics must shift toward accuracy, legality, and fairness. Supervisors must be held accountable for systemic misuse, and training must emphasize the limits of administrative authority.
Conclusion
The story of the NYPD’s psychological hold practice is, at its core, a story of administrative malpractice disguised as legitimacy. What began as a safeguard for genuine mental-health concerns has been repurposed into a bureaucratic shortcut—branding candidates as psychologically unstable for nothing more than missing documents or paperwork delays.
This misuse is not only illegal under New York Education Law and the Professional Policing Act of 2021. It is discriminatory under Title VII, unvalidated under UGESP, and unconstitutional under due-process doctrine. It exposes the City to sweeping liability: statutory, regulatory, civil-rights, and common-law. More importantly, it has inflicted real harm on individuals whose careers and reputations have been permanently scarred.
The practice also corrodes public trust. Communities already skeptical of law enforcement see further evidence of arbitrariness and evasion. Licensed psychologists see their profession co-opted by unlicensed actors. Candidates see civil-service hiring reduced to theater, where the appearance of fairness conceals systemic abuse.
The lesson is simple but urgent: bureaucratic convenience cannot justify stigmatizing falsehoods. The NYPD’s psychological hold is not science; it is a clerical fiction that masquerades as professional evaluation. Unless dismantled, it will stand as another cautionary tale of administrative distortions cloaked in the language of law and science—akin to sealed-record misuse and junk forensic evidence.
Reform is both possible and necessary. Abolishing unauthorized psychological holds, mandating transparency, enforcing UGESP validation, and instituting independent oversight would restore legality to candidate processing. More than that, it would signal a renewed commitment to civil rights, professional integrity, and public trust.
Without reform, the psychological hold will remain a symbol of what happens when institutions place efficiency above rights, appearances above truth, and theater above law. With reform, it can serve as a turning point—a reminder that even the largest police department in the nation must obey the statutes, respect the Constitution, and treat every candidate with fairness and dignity.