Skip to main content

ACS DOESN'T HIRE PEOPLE WHO CRITICIZE THE SYSTEM

 "It was rational for [the New York City's Administration for Children's Services] to be concerned about the potential disruptiveness of the petitioner's speech" put forward in his essay, wrote the Appellate Division, First Department.

By Jason Grant | November 24, 2021

page1image34126848 page1image34125888 page1image49244944

Appellate Division, First Department at 27 Madison Ave. (Photo by David Handschuh/NYLJ)

A state appeals court has ruled it was not a First Amendment violation, or arbitrary and capricious, for New York City’s child welfare agency to avoid hiring a man in part because he’d published an essay that laid out his views on the fundamental unfairness of the criminal justice system.

“The record supports [the Administration for Children's Services] assertion that it declined to hire petitioner because of its concern for the potential impact of his speech on his work, and not in retaliation for the content of that speech,” wrote a panel of Appellate Division, First Department justices, in part, as the panel addressed a First Amendment-based argument leveled by the man in his action against city agency ACS after it didn’t hire him as a youth development specialist.

The unanimous First Department panel also ruled the ACS’s choice not to hire the plainti John Whiteld was not an “arbitrary and capricious” decision.

That particular ruling came as the justices analyzed whether ACS, by not hiring Whiteld, had run afoul of judicial review under CPLR Article 78. Article 78 is a state statutory section that allows litigants to ask a court to review decisions and actions of a state ocial or administrative agency.

“While such opinions [expressed in the essay] might help the petitioner [Whiteld] to empathize and bond with youth charged to his care, it was not irrational for the respondent [ACS] to conclude that [Whiteld's] opinions might demonstrate a cynicism that would impede his ability to counsel at-risk youth who were enmeshed in the system,” wrote the justices as they conducted an Article 78 analysis.

Whiteld, who represented himself pro se before the First Department panel, according to the decision, could not be reached for comment.

page1image34112064

https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2021/11/24/appeals-court-sides-with-child-welfare-agency-that-passed-over-job-seeker-because-of-essay-on-... 1/2

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

HOW TO FILE A COMPLAINT AGAINST ACS

We are often asked by parents; how do I file a complaint against the abusive ACS worker. The first thing we advise is not to file an complaints with anyone at ACS. ACS supervisors are there to protect their paychecks and their jobs. They will usually stone wall the parent into giving up. The goal of the ACS supervisors is to ensure that the parents follow the demands of ACS. Also, we do not suggest filing a complaint with any local political office. ACS is so dysfunctional that they are immune to any political pressure of any kind. Mayor Deblasio has failed to correct the problems at ACS and the agency is simply on cruise control with no one in control. The most effective way to file a complaint against an ACS worker is to file suit in federal court. This will get the workers attention and take them out of their comfort zone. We urge parents to obtain an attorney as fast as possible and begin the process of a lawsuit. The federal courts are a neutral place for parents to bring

APPEALS COURT SLAMS FAMILY COURT JUDGE AND ACS!!

  Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department AD3d Argued - May 17, 2022 FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P. JOSEPH J. MALTESE PAUL WOOTEN LARA J. GENOVESI, JJ. 2021-07543 DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of Lexis B. (Anonymous). Administration for Children’s Services, petitioner-respondent; Natalia B. (Anonymous), appellant, et al., respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Joseph B. (Anonymous). Administration for Children’s Services, petitioner-respondent; Natalia B. (Anonymous), appellant, et al., respondent. (Proceeding No. 2) (Docket Nos. N-1916-21, N-1917-21) Michael S. Discioarro, New York, NY, for appellant. Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Deborah A. Brenner and Andrea Nishi of counsel), for petitioner-respondent. Anne M. Serby, Long Beach, NY, attorney for the child Lexis B. In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Mar

THE DANGER OF THE ACS HOME VISITS

 The bulk of the street level work that ACS does is the home visit. ACS workers take this opportunity to attack the parents in any ay that they can. Initially the ACS worker will demand that the parents not record them. They will actually give you orders in your own home. Do not allow them to do this. If you have been contacted by ACS, contact our hotline at      917-519-8417 Do not speak to an acs worker without an attorney!! brooklynacslawyer.com queensacslawyer.com bronxacslawyer.com statenislandacslawyer.com sueacs.com