Submitted September 28, 2026 at 8:18 AM EDT | 1,928 words
The
Agency Meant to Help Me Work Became My Biggest Barrier
Published By Robert “Rip” Grigonis, Marijuana Advocacy Group Inc.
I
went to a New York agency for help getting back to work. It gave me a
second job: fighting the agency.
For
nearly two years, I have tracked missing records, challenged
decisions, repeated accommodation requests, assembled exhibits and
searched for counsel. I have done all of this to use a vocational
rehabilitation system that exists to reduce disability related
barriers. I am not asking readers to decide every disputed fact in my
case. I am asking them to notice what this process demands of a
disabled person before the facts can even be heard.
This
matters beyond one dispute. In 2025, only 22.8 percent of Americans
with disabilities were employed, compared with 65.2 percent of people
without disabilities, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The unemployment rate for disabled people was twice as high. Disabled
workers were also more likely to be self employed. Those numbers
should make vocational agencies curious about unconventional paths to
work. Too often, the system treats those paths as suspect.
I
am autistic and live with physical and other related disabilities. I
repeatedly asked ACCES-VR to use written communication for important
matters as a disability accommodation. The agency had a clinician’s
December 2024 report documenting significant barriers affecting daily
and work functioning and recommending further resources. Still,
critical communications continued in formats I had asked the agency
not to use.
During
a November 2025 phone call, I understood an ACCES-VR representative
to warn that seeking help from the Client Assistance Program or
requesting an impartial hearing could lead to my services being
terminated. ACCES-VR may characterize that exchange differently. The
dispute over what was said is another reason I have asked for a
complete record and the communications surrounding my case.
My
vocational goal brought another layer of resistance. I have more than
two decades of hands on experience with cannabis production, and I
wanted to turn that knowledge into lawful work in New York’s
regulated market. In 2025, I founded Marijuana Advocacy Group Inc., a
nonprofit focused on helping people with disabilities pursue careers
and fair treatment in vocational systems and emerging industries.
To
be fair, federal marijuana law can create some complications.
Marijuana remains in Schedule I under federal law. This summer, the
Drug Enforcement Administration held hearings on a proposal to move
it to Schedule III, and the agency has posted the transcripts, but no
final rescheduling rule has been issued. That conflict deserves
attention, but complexity does not excuse a blanket refusal to
examine the lawful parts of a vocational plan. I wanted ACCES-VR to
evaluate paid work in advocacy, education and other legitimate
operations on their actual merits. Disabled New Yorkers should not
disappear from an emerging industry because the word cannabis makes
an agency uncomfortable.
ACCES-VR
referred me to South Oaks for a vocational evaluation. South Oaks
later confirmed that a final report had been sent to ACCES-VR. Yet I
have spent months seeking that report, supporting notes,
communications and related records. A January 2026 meeting at South
Oaks ended with security escorting me from the building before we
addressed the vocational issues I came to discuss. I have requested
the incident and security records connected to that encounter as
well.
When
I sought due process, the maze tightened. My first impartial hearing
was dismissed without prejudice in May 2026 after problems that
included delayed records, unclear issues and a large exhibit file.
The hearing officer advised me to submit a more concise filing and
seek help again from the Client Assistance Program. I followed that
advice. My renewed matter was adjourned on August 5 so I could
continue pursuing representation.
On
September 18, Impartial Hearing Officer Jessica Sparacino Esq. issued
a procedural determination. She recognized my diligent efforts to
find counsel, but explained that she has no authority to arrange
legal representation or advocacy assistance. She directed that the
case move toward scheduling, with at least 15 business days notice
before a conference, hearing or intervening deadline. Her
determination did not decide the merits. On September 25, the
ACCES-VR Quality Assurance and Monitoring Unit asked for availability
by October 1. I objected to scheduling while the representation issue
and my request for help with legal fees remain unresolved.
The
adjournment did produce one concrete result. With assistance from
Christopher X. Birstler of OPWDD, I located attorney Edward J. Lake,
who is willing to represent me if I can provide a retainer. I have
asked the IHO to have ACCES-VR fund that retainer and reasonable
later fees as case specific corrective relief. ACCES-VR policy
ordinarily makes people responsible for the expense of their own
representatives, so I am not claiming that the usual rule already
promises this funding. My request has not been decided. A separate
request to New York Lawyers for the Public Interest remains pending.
I still have no retained counsel.
I
also submitted supplemental evidence concerning communications
between ACCES-VR and Disability Rights New York, which administers
the Client Assistance Program in New York. While I was asking the
program for independent help, ACCES-VR described me to CAP as
preoccupied, perseverating, pursuing my own agenda and needing to be
stable enough to return to work. I believe those psychiatric,
behavioral and motive based characterizations risked turning
manifestations of disability and persistence in self advocacy into
reasons to discount me. The timing and content deserve scrutiny. They
do not prove that ACCES-VR directed CAP to reject my case, and I do
not claim that they did. Although, CAP later declined the advocacy
and representation I requested.
On
September 15, I prepared a federal civil rights complaint through the
United States Department of Health and Human Services Office for
Civil Rights portal. It alleges disability discrimination and
retaliation tied to accommodation requests, efforts to obtain
records, informed choice, CAP assistance and due process. Cannabis
advocacy itself is not the protected category I asserted. My claim is
about disability based stereotypes and what followed after I
exercised protected rights. The PDF available today is the portal’s
review and submit screen. It does not establish that OCR accepted the
complaint, opened an investigation or reached any finding. I include
it as a dated record of my allegations, not a federal endorsement of
them.
The
evidence problem remains. A 52 page production from ACCES-VR
consisted largely of documents I had submitted myself. I continue to
seek internal case notes, communications, complete South Oaks
materials, incident records and documents showing how the agency
evaluated my employment goal, accommodation requests and contacts
with outside advocates. A person cannot intelligently challenge a
decision when the agency controls the documents explaining how that
decision was made.
New
York’s own policies say that applicants may challenge service
determinations, should be active participants, must be told about CAP
and may have a representative during due process. ACCES-VR policy
also says an employment plan should reflect a person’s strengths,
resources, priorities, concerns, abilities, capabilities, career
interests and informed choice. Its guidance recognizes self
employment as a viable option when carefully assessed. Those are good
standards. My experience shows how easily they can become ceremonial
when the person is left to enforce them alone.
Three
reforms might keep other people from entering the same maze. When a
dispute begins, ACCES-VR should automatically provide a complete,
searchable electronic case record, including internal case notes,
contractor reports and communications with outside advocacy
organizations, subject only to specific lawful redactions. An
approved communication accommodation should follow the person across
counselors, contractors and hearing procedures. If CAP declines or
cannot provide representation and the case proceeds to an impartial
hearing, the state should provide another independent advocate or a
funded counsel option. A right that requires a disabled person to out
litigate the agency alone is a paper right.
Agency
officials may believe they have reasonable explanations for every
step in my case. They should present those explanations, together
with the complete record, in a forum I can access. I founded
Marijuana Advocacy Group because I learned this system the hard way
and because other disabled people have shared their experiences with
me. Some say ACCES-VR helped them. Others describe delays, poor
communication and pressure to accept goals that do not fit. I went to
ACCES-VR because I wanted to work. I still do. Independence does not
mean being abandoned inside a bureaucracy. It means receiving the
information, accommodations and fair process needed to make our own
choices. The state is moving my case toward a hearing. It should make
sure I can meaningfully take part when I get there.
Author Information
Robert
“Rip X” Grigonis is an autistic disability advocate and the
founder and president of Marijuana Advocacy Group Inc., a New York
nonprofit established in 2025 to advocate for people with
disabilities in cannabis and other emerging industries. He is a
participant in the ongoing ACCES VR due process matter described in
this essay.
This
essay presents the author’s account and interpretation of an
ongoing dispute. ACCES VR, the New York State Education Department,
South Oaks and Disability Rights New York may dispute some of the
author’s descriptions, allegations or conclusions. The September
18, 2026 hearing officer determination addresses procedure and
scheduling only and expressly does not decide the merits. The
September 15 OCR document is a review and submit screen and does not
establish submission, acceptance, investigation or any finding. The
September 25 scheduling exchange did not resolve counsel or funding.
Case records and correspondence are available to editors for
verification, with private medical information redacted where
appropriate.
