New York Civil Service Attorney Law Blog : New York Civil Service Lawyer & Attorney : Kevin P. Sheerin : Article 78 : Serving New York City, Long Island, Manhattan, Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island

Matter of McElligott v Nassau County Civil Service Commission

Petitioner, Maurice McElligott, brought about this Article 78 proceeding to review the determination of the Nassau County Civil Service Commission psychologically disqualifying him from probationary employment as a police officer. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioner, ordering Nassau County Civil Service Commission to produce the written protocol used to determine passage or non-passage of petitioner’s MMPI-2 test. The Commission then appealed this decision.

In 2003, petitioner applied to the Nassau County Civil Service Commission (the Commission) for a position as a Nassau County police officer. He passed the written exam and other tests but was required to schedule an appointment for a psychological interview following his completion of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory II (MMPI-2). After completing the psychological interview, petitioner was then directed to make an appointment with a psychiatrist. Petitioner was then informed that he failed to meet the psychological requirements of the position and therefore was psychologically disqualified. Petitioner submitted two independent psychological evaluations and numerous personal recommendations and requested the Commission reconsider his disqualification. The Commission reaffirmed its determination and petitioner commenced this Article 78 appeal finding the disqualification arbitrary and capricious and based upon a subjective reaction to his personality rather than based on any objective criteria.

The Commission explained in its answer that the first stage of the psychological screening process includes a group administration of the MMPI-2. Applicants that fall within the accepted range are not subjected to further psychological testing while applicants with scores outside the normal range must complete an in-person interview with a clinical psychologist. According to his affidavit, the psychologist who completed petitioner’s interview said that contrary to the claims of the Commission, all candidates’ MMPI-2 results are reviewed by a psychologist and then interviewed. The Court found the statements by the Commission and the staff psychologist to be in opposition and directed the Commission to produce the actual protocol used to determine whether petitioner’s scores were within the normal MMPI-2 range.

The Commission argued that the courts order constituted an attempt to interfere with its discretion to determine the qualifications of police officers. The Court disagrees and feels that the evidence demanded, the written protocol for determining whether a given candidate’s MMPI-2 score fell outside of a pre-determined normal range triggering the need for an in-person psychological evaluation, was relevant.

Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision, without costs or disbursements.

Read the full article here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Overview of medical and psychological disqualifications

 The NYS Civil Service Law along with the NYC Charter authorizes the DCAS Commissioner to disqualify a potential candidate to a competitive position for failure to meet medical and psychological standards. If this occurs, the candidate has the right to appeal the disqualification to the New York City Civil Service Commission.

 Section 814(a)(6) of the New York City Charter provides that the DCAS Commissioner investigates and reviews the qualifications of applicants for positions in civil service.

 Section 813(d) of the Charter provides that the CCSC has the power to hear and determine appeals.

Section 815(a)(5) provides that agency heads assist DCAS in reviewing and evaluating a candidate’s qualifications, a Section 815(a)(18) permits the delegation by the DCAS Commissioner of certain personnel management functions to agency heads.

 It is the Hiring Agency’s responsibility to ensure that these processes are followed with regard to candidates for positions in its agency.

 The CCSC will forward appeals and documentation, if submitted, in support of an appeal of medical and psychological disqualifications to the office within each Hiring Agency for such purpose. The Hiring Agency will first ascertain that the appeal to the CCSC was filed by the candidate within thirty days of the date of the action. If the candidate did not file the appeal with the CCSC in a timely fashion, the Hiring Agency will request that the appeal be dismissed on that basis.

 When filed in a timely fashion, the Hiring Agency will, prior to preparing any submission to the CCSC to support the disqualification, afford the disqualified candidate sixty days in which to submit medical documentation to support the appeal.

 If a candidate submits medical and/or psychological documentation to support the appeal from the disqualification, the CCSC will forward any new documentation to the office within each Hiring Agency identified for such purchase. The Hiring Agency will review and give due consideration to each new documentation commensurate with the weight of the new documentation. Review and consideration may include scrutiny of the documentation by a doctor of the Hiring Agency or an independent consultant, or a re-examination of the candidate.

 In cases where a Hiring Agency decides not to rescind a disqualification, they are responsible for submitting to the CCSC a cover report explaining the decision to disqualify a candidate. The cover report must contain a reference to the specific medical or psychological standard not met by the candidate, an explanation of how the candidate did not meet this standard, how failure to meet standard prevents the candidate from performing an essential function of the position, and reference to any documentation supplied by the candidate with an explanation as to why said documentation does not serve as a basis to rescind the disqualification. Along with the cover report should be copies of all medical or psychological records that support the disqualification clearly labeled as records in support of the disqualification and copies of all medical or psychological records submitted by the candidate in support of their contention that he or she is qualified for the position clearly identified as records in support of the candidate’s appeal.

 If an evidentiary hearing is determined necessary, the CCSC must forward the notice to the Hiring Agency and the Office Manager of the Office of the General Counsel of DCAS.

 The Hiring Agency is responsible for maintaining statistics required by DCAS to ensure that the mandatory processes are being followed. Each Hiring Agency must maintain the statistics of the number of appeals forwarded to the Hiring Agency by the CCSC, the date on which the appeals were submitted to the CCSC, and the date on which cover reports were submitted to the CCSC.

 Read entire article here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link