FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Eric Sanders, Esq., of The Sanders Firm, P.C., has announced that Ex-NYPD police officer, Marquis Anderson, filed a charge of discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC] against the police department of the City of New York. Anderson alleges race discrimination and retaliation
NEW YORK – September 18, 2023 – Anderson’s ordeal began in November 2022, after he had taken several days off work to recover from COVID-19, in compliance with the current guidelines. Anderson claims he was met with resistance after requesting additional time off related to his illness. Anderson alleges the supervising officer dismissed his concerns and referred him to the Medical Division, claiming that his reasons were insufficient to be excused.
Upon reporting to the Medical Division, Anderson alleges that he was redirected to the Psychological Evaluation Section without cause. In fact, upon reporting to the Department Psychologist, she was perplexed as to why Anderson was referred for psychological evaluation; however, Anderson claims that she placed him on Restricted Duty after a brief conversation. Before this, Anderson claims he successfully completed all of the prerequisites to graduate from the Police Academy including passing the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory [MMPI-2] and all related written, physical and academic examinations.
In the Charge, Anderson claims that this restriction, which was imposed with no reason provided, unfairly prevented him from graduating from the Police Academy. Further, Anderson claims the Department Psychologist suggested he seek out a private counselor, which he did. According to Anderson, the Licensed Mental Health Counselor allegedly expressed confusion as to why he was asked seek private counseling and made multiple unsuccessful attempts to contact the Department Psychologist. The situation culminated in the Department Psychologist recommending his separation from service in April 2023 based on ‘information’ that was collected during his sessions.
“Standard psychological testing, when used properly, can be a valuable tool,” said Eric Sanders. “However, it is a well-accepted premise among the medical community that psychological testing that requires human analysis by a psychologist, is fraught implicit bias.”
Sanders adds: “In 1978, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC] adopted the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures [UGESP] under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Moreover, the UGESP provides uniform guidance for employers to ensure their testing and selection procedures are in compliance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In this case, Anderson was terminated for ‘unknown’ reasons presumably in violation of the UGESP guidelines.”
Ultimately, Anderson was terminated from the recruit program on August 14, 2023. Anderson believes that the termination was based upon unlawful racial discrimination, retaliation, and a direct violation of his civil rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Charge of Discrimination [Charge No.: 520-2023-07747] was filed with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on September 18, 2023.
ABOUT THE SANDERS FIRM, P.C.
Fighting for Justice, and Reform to Promote Equal Opportunity
New York Civil Rights Lawyer Eric Sanders, Esq., of The Sanders Firm, P.C., has a proven track record of fighting injustice and discrimination. With over 19 years of experience, Mr. Sanders has successfully litigated civil rights cases involving law enforcement agencies. The firm holds these institutions accountable and pushes for meaningful reforms to promote equal opportunity. Over the years, Mr. Sanders has secured millions of dollars in compensatory damages for clients alleging discrimination and other violations of civil rights.
CONTACT
Eric Sanders, Esq.
President and Owner, The Sanders Firm, P.C.
212-652-2782
# # #
UPDATE: Developments Since September 18, 2023
Since this update was first published in September 2023, two independent developments have materially clarified the context and significance of Marquis Anderson’s termination from the NYPD recruit program.
First, on August 14, 2025, City & State published a detailed investigative report examining the NYPD’s psychological assessment practices. That investigation documented that, over the past decade, a majority of individuals conducting psychological evaluations for the NYPD were not licensed or board-permitted psychologists under New York law. Despite this, these individuals routinely performed career-determinative assessments, often using the title “psychologist,” and did so under a licensure exemption that state lawmakers publicly questioned as inapplicable to police psychological fitness evaluations.
The investigation further found high turnover within the psychological assessment units, limited supervision, and an absence of transparent demographic tracking or disparate-impact review of assessment outcomes—issues directly relevant to the concerns raised in Anderson’s case.
Second, on January 22, 2026, the Supreme Court of the State of New York issued a Decision and Order in Anderson v. City of New York, Index No. 158508/2024. The court denied the City’s motion to dismiss Anderson’s race-discrimination claims under the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws, holding that he adequately pleaded that the NYPD’s psychological evaluation process operated as a facially neutral policy applied in an arbitrary and subjective manner with a disproportionate adverse impact on Black probationary police officers. The court also recognized allegations that the Department failed to properly standardize or monitor these evaluations as required under the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP).
While the court dismissed certain claims on pleading grounds, it left intact the core legal theory underlying Anderson’s challenge: that psychological screening mechanisms, when administered without adequate controls and oversight, may function as unlawful gatekeeping tools rather than neutral assessments.
These developments do not alter the factual account described above. They confirm that the concerns raised at the time of publication were not isolated or speculative, but part of a broader institutional practice that has since drawn both investigative scrutiny and judicial review.