FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
New York, NY – April 18, 2025 — In a sweeping and detailed complaint filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), veteran NYPD Police Officer Frankie F. Palaguachi has accused the New York City Police Department and its drug-testing contractor, Psychemedics Corporation, of operating a racially biased and scientifically flawed testing methodology that disproportionately impacts officers of color—particularly Latino and Black members of the service—through the use of controversial Radioimmunoassay of Hair (RIAH) hair-based drug testing.
The administrative charge, filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its state and local equivalents, outlines a deeply troubling pattern: facially neutral drug testing methods implemented without oversight, scientific validation, or legal compliance, resulting in discriminatory outcomes, career-altering punishments, and retaliation against officers who raise concerns. The complaint names both the NYPD and Psychemedics as respondents, citing their interdependent roles in administering, interpreting, and enforcing drug test results without safeguards, procedural fairness, or adherence to federal regulatory standards.
“What we see here is not mere oversight—it’s institutional insensitivity. The NYPD has allowed flawed science and opaque processes to dictate discipline without regard for fairness, accuracy, or humanity. Officers of color are disproportionately harmed, yes—but this regime endangers all officers, regardless of race. It’s a system cloaked in the false legitimacy of ‘randomness,’ while political insiders are protected and outsiders are punished. That’s not justice—it’s structural betrayal.”
— Eric Sanders, President of The Sanders Firm, P.C.
“I saw this coming years ago when I was president of the Guardians Association of the Police Department City of New York. Even then, when the Department first proposed using hair testing, the scientific and civil rights concerns were already obvious. Since that time, researchers and members of the scientific community have repeatedly confirmed what many of us warned: this method is unreliable, racially biased, and ripe for abuse. Frankly, I’m stunned that the unions haven’t mounted a serious challenge. This isn’t just a policy failure—it’s a betrayal of the very people who risk everything in uniform, says Sanders.”
A “Random” Drug Test That Was Anything But
According to the charge, Officer Palaguachi—a decorated officer with no history of misconduct—was notified on February 22, 2024, that he had been selected for a “random” drug test. However, the selection was not announced via the NYPD’s Finest Message system, which is the standard method for notifying members of service about random drug screenings. Instead, the notice came via an undocumented phone call. Palaguachi, who had recently raised internal concerns about discriminatory treatment and testing practices within the department, immediately questioned the timing and legitimacy of the selection.
Upon arrival at the NYPD Medical Division, Palaguachi was subjected not to a standard urinalysis test, but to radioimmunoassay of hair (RIAH)—a method of drug testing that analyzes strands of hair to detect drug metabolites over a 90-day window. While marketed as more comprehensive than urine screening, RIAH has never been approved by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) for use in federal workplace testing due to its inability to distinguish between environmental contamination and ingestion, its destructive testing method, and well-documented racial disparities in drug retention among darker-haired individuals.
Palaguachi’s sample was analyzed by Psychemedics Corporation, the City’s long-time testing vendor. The results, according to the charge, were inconsistent with science-based cutoff levels and later contradicted by multiple independent drug screenings, a polygraph, and a court-admissible toxicology exam. Nonetheless, the NYPD used the test to suspend Palaguachi without pay, demote him, and begin disciplinary proceedings.
Racial Bias Baked Into the Science—and Ignored by the NYPD
As the charge outlines, RIAH testing has long been criticized in the scientific community for its racialized outcomes. Eumelanin—the pigment that gives hair its dark color—has a high affinity for certain drug compounds, such as cocaine and THC. Studies have shown that individuals with darker, coarser hair, such as African American and Hispanic populations, are more likely to bind drug residues even from passive exposure, resulting in a higher rate of false positives when compared to those with lighter hair.
This biological disparity is not hypothetical. In Jones v. City of Boston, 845 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals permitted a Title VII disparate impact claim to proceed after finding statistical and scientific evidence that the Boston Police Department’s use of hair testing disproportionately harmed Black officers. In that case, the court acknowledged the unreliability of hair testing in distinguishing between actual use and surface contamination, particularly in racially diverse populations.
The EEOC charge filed by Palaguachi explicitly references this case and similar scientific literature, noting that the NYPD continues to use RIAH testing despite the lack of federal endorsement, the known bias against officers of color, and the destructive, non-verifiable nature of the method. No split sample is retained. No DNA authentication is performed. And officers are not permitted to verify the results through reanalysis or appeal independently.
Pattern or Practice of Discrimination and Retaliation
The charge further alleges that the NYPD’s testing program is not merely flawed—it is systematically discriminatory. The Department does not conduct statistical monitoring of testing outcomes by race, sex, or ethnicity, as required by the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), 29 C.F.R. § 1607. Nor does it provide employees with access to the algorithm that determines who is selected for testing. The entire process, according to the charge, is shrouded in secrecy and devoid of procedural safeguards.
The EEOC filing identifies a broader pattern of misconduct:
Officers of color are subjected to hair testing at higher rates than white officers.
Unequal disciplinary outcomes for similarly situated employees—some white officers with positive results reinstated quietly, while officers of color are demoted or terminated.
Refusal by the NYPD to disclose comparator data or trial decisions, thereby obstructing efforts to challenge discriminatory enforcement.
Use of the drug testing program as a mechanism of retaliation against officers who question internal practices, raise discrimination claims, or advocate for reform.
Palaguachi’s case, the charge asserts, is not an isolated incident but part of a “pattern or practice” of using drug testing as a proxy for racial targeting, political suppression, and retaliation against dissenters.
Psychemedics: The Silent Gatekeeper
While the NYPD carries out the disciplinary action, the charge squarely names Psychemedics as a co-respondent. The Texas-based laboratory, a major player in the hair testing industry, is the City’s exclusive vendor for RIAH screening. It conducts the initial screening, confirmatory testing, and issues the final report that often forms the basis for career-ending decisions.
Critically, Psychemedics operates behind closed doors. The cutoff thresholds it uses are proprietary. The sample is consumed during testing, eliminating any opportunity for independent verification. And officers have no right to challenge the lab’s methods or demand a third-party review. This lack of transparency, the charge argues, creates a due process vacuum—one that disproportionately affects officers of color and whistleblowers.
Under Title VII and UGESP, employers cannot delegate away their responsibility to ensure that testing methods are valid, nondiscriminatory, and scientifically sound. Nor can they rely on third-party vendors whose practices have not been independently audited or validated for fairness and compliance.
Yet, according to the charge, the City of New York has done precisely that—outsourcing life-altering decisions to a private contractor whose procedures remain shielded from scrutiny.
Legal Framework: Title VII, § 1983, NYSHRL, NYCHRL—and More
The legal claims asserted in the charge are far-reaching. They include:
Title VII: Disparate impact and disparate treatment based on race and national origin; hostile work environment; retaliation.
42 U.S.C. § 1983: Equal Protection Clause violations for race-based selective enforcement; First Amendment retaliation for protected whistleblowing.
New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL): Discrimination and retaliation based on race and ethnicity.
New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL): Broad anti-discrimination protections, including perceived political belief discrimination.
New York Labor Law § 740 and Civil Service Law § 75-b: Retaliation for protected whistleblowing.
Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MRTA): Unlawful adverse employment action based solely on metabolite presence in the absence of impairment.
The charge further references Landon v. Kroll Laboratory Specialists, Inc., 22 N.Y.3d 1 (2013), in support of the claim that Psychemedics. However, a third party may be held liable under New York law for negligently issuing drug test results with disciplinary consequences.
Remedy Sought: Accountability and Structural Reform
Palaguachi seeks not only individual remedies—including back pay, reinstatement, and compensatory damages—but also institutional change. His complaint calls on the EEOC to investigate the NYPD’s drug testing program as a systemic violation of civil rights laws and to order comprehensive reforms, including:
The suspension of hair-based drug testing until it is scientifically validated and free of racial bias.
Implementation of procedural safeguards, including sample verification, DNA authentication, and appeal rights.
Transparent auditing of testing outcomes by race, gender, and national origin, as required under UGESP.
Disclosure of selection algorithms and documentation used in the random testing process.
Public reporting of disciplinary outcomes to prevent selective enforcement and ensure accountability.
A Call to Action
“Too often, civil rights violations within law enforcement go unchallenged because of the blue wall of silence,” said Sanders. “But Officer Palaguachi is standing up—not just for himself, but for every officer who has been targeted, retaliated against, or silenced. This case is about justice, science, and the pursuit of fairness. And the law is on his side.”
The EEOC will now investigate the claims and may issue a determination. If the agency finds reasonable cause to believe discrimination occurred, it may initiate conciliation or issue a right-to-sue letter permitting civil litigation in federal court.
In the meantime, this case puts the NYPD and its private testing partner on notice: institutional discrimination and scientifically unsound policies will no longer go unchallenged.
###
Read the EEOC Charge of Discrimination