Bypass Appeal Decisions A-D

The Appellant's involvement in a domestic violence-related incident provided DOC with reasonable justification to byass the Appellant as a correction officer. Bypass appeal dismissed.

Issue of whether the Appointing Authority complied with the civil service law regarding provisional appointments and promotions. 1 Appeal withdrawn, 2 dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and 3 set for full hearing regarding whether the posting was a provisional promotion or appointment and, if promotion, whether the 3 Appellants were "qualified" for the higher position senior custodian.

The Appellant's background check revealed information that provided DOC with reasonable justification to bypass her for appointment as a correction officer. Bypass appeal dismissed.

The Department's decision to bypass the Appellant was a valid exercise of discretion based on a policy to not hire persons with a history and pattern of perpetrating domestic violence and was well supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Bypass appeal dismissed.

The charges brought against the Appellant for Domestic Assault and Battery illustrate unacceptable behavior. Further, the Appellant's employment history was also troubling, thus justifying the decision to bypass him for appointment. Bypass appeal dismissed.

Under Section 39, a permanent civil service employee may bump beyond the next lower title in the series under certain circumstances in lieu of being laid off.

Relates to prior bypass appeal in which a 3-2 majority ruled that a civil service employee has the right to bump outside their civil service title. Appellant filed this subsequent appeal claiming he had a right to choose which title he could bump to. Majority ruled that he had no such right; minority abstained as they continue to believe that bumping rights are not allowed outside of civil service title unless articulated in a collective bargaining agreement.

The Appellant’s inability to successfully completer a prior police academy training program provided the city with reasonable justification to bypass him for original appointment as a police officer. Bypass appeal dismissed.

The Appellant's criminal record provided DOC with reasonable justification to bypass him. Appeal dismissed.

The superior interview performance and command experience of the selected candidates provided the City with reasonable justification to bypass the Appellant. Bypass appeal dismissed.

The Department sustained its burden of proof as its action of bypassing the Appellant was based on a preponderance of the credible evidence. The Appellant failed to offer credible testimony that he did not intend to conceal or misrepresent his marital status. The evidence, particularly the videotaped discretionary hearing, demonstrated that once the Department undertook questioning the Appellant regarding his marital status, he was less and less forthcoming in terms of the information he divulged. Bypass appeal dismissed.

Appeals Court Affirmed Judgment of Superior Court upholding Commission's decision that it does not have jurisdiction over challenges to reallocation of positions resulting from collective bargaining.

When making a provisional appointment, there is no obligation on the part of the Appointing Authority to prove that the person so appointed was the most qualified candidate or better qualified than any other. Bypass appeal dismissed.

In making its bypass decision based on the interview performance by the Appellant, the Town neutrally applied its public policy of fairly and similarly interviewing all candidates. There was no evidence to suggest that the Town's action was arbitrary or capricious. Bypass appeal dismissed.

The failure by the Appointing Authority to conduct a proper inquiry and investigation into the matters concerning the Appellant's prior employment resulted in an overly vague notice to be issued to the Appellant. Given a more thorough interview and background check process, the Appointing Authority may have been able to support a decision to bypass the Appellant. Bypass appeal allowed.

In sum, despite Appellant's having the highest civil service examination score, and being the only veteran on the certification list, he was bypassed by a candidate with less seniority and lower performance evaluations. The Town proffered reasons for this bypass decision have been shown to have been based on impermissible biases and a flawed selection process. Bypass appeal allowed.

Commission Decision Overturned.

There was no bypass regarding the instant action. Rather, the evidence demonstrated that the Appellant and the individual promoted to a sergeant position were tied candidateson the civil service list. Choosing from among tied candidates does not constitute a bypass. Further, there is no evidence of any long-standing tie-breaking administrative procedure of the City of Holyoke and/or that such a long-standing tie-breaking method was not followed based on reasons unrelated to basic merit principles. Bypass appeal dismissed.

Town submitted positive reasons only for bypass. The reasons proffered by the Town for selecting the third-ranked candidate apply equally to the Appellant, who was ranked second. Bypass appeal allowed.

The City failed to prove that the Appellant illegally accessed voicemails of employees at his former place of employment, the reason given for bypass. Bypass appeal allowed.

A majority of the Commission had allowed the Appellant's bypass appeal. The Superior Court ruled that the Commission had erroneously subsituted its judgment for that of the Appointing Authority and vacated the Commission's decision.

There was no bypass in this case. At the time of the promotional appointment for the position of sergeant, the Appointing Authority, as well as the state's Human Resource Division, was under a court order to promote another candidate. Bypass appeal dismissed.

Selection from a group of tied candidates is not a bypass. Bypass appeal dismissed.

The Town had reasonable justification to bypass the Appellant because his full-time employment as Police Chief for Becker College creates a continuing conflict of interest situation that does not exist with any of the other appointees. Bypass appeal dismissed.

The psychiatric opinions are infected with bias. Bypass appeal allowed.

Selection from a group of tied candidates is not a bypass, even if the candidate was erroneosuly told by HRD that he could appeal his non-selection. Bypass Appeal Dismissed.

Labor Service Promotion. The statute allows the Appointing Authority to make promotional selections "from among the same number of persons with the greatest length of service as thenumber specified in making appointments under PAR .09 (2n + 1)." There exists no requirement or provision by which an Appointing Authority must select the most senior of that number of persons. Here, seniority is only employed in order to create the pool ofcandidates from among whom selection may be made. The Appointing Authority is not required to provide written reasons for a selection. Rather, the Town, in this instance, needed only to have reported the promotional appointment to the Personel Administrator or local laborservice director, certifying that the promotion was made in accordance with the Civil Service laws and PARs.Bypass appeal dismissed.

The veterans' preference in provisional civil service appointments is limited to original appointments and does not extend to provisional promotions. Bypass appeal dismissed.

The Appellant's background, including an arrest record, an altercation involving a Boston police officer and her termination from recent employment, provided the City of Boston with reasonable justification for bypassing her for employment as a police officer. Bypass appeal dismissed.

The Appellant's poor interview by an outside review panel justified the Town's decision to bypass him from promotion, even though the Appellant had scored higher on the civil service promotional examination. Bypass appeal dismissed.

The Department of Correction was justified in bypassing the Appellant for promotion to lieutenant based on his prior disciplinary history. Bypass appeal dismissed.

Superior Court affirmed Commission's decision which upheld DOC's decision to bypass the Appellant for promotion. The Court ruled that the Commission was well supported in finding that the plaintiff ahd not proven that the bypass was invalid.

The Commission rejected the settlement agreement of the parties regarding the City's decision to bypass the Appellant for original appointment to the position of police officer. Case scheduled for a full hearing.

The Appellant's prior employment history, disciplinary record and ommissions on his application for employment provided the City with reasonable justification to bypass the Appellant. Bypass appeal dismissed.

Selection from a group of tied candidates is not a bypass. Bypass appeal dismissed.

The Town had reasonable justification to bypass the Appellant for promotion to sergeant, including its reliance on the Appellant's failure to get his personal vehicle inspected over a two-year period. Bypass appeal dismissed 3-1.

The City was justified in bypass the Appellant for appointment as a firefighter due to his driving history, employment history, criminal record and failure to attend a prior Civil Service Commission hearing without showing good cause.

The Department's assertion that the Appellant was bypassed because she was untruthful by failing to provide the Department with full disclosure regarding her health history and by failing to do so, attempting to mislead and present herself in a more favorable light in order to gain employment was not supported by a preponderance of evidence. Bypass appeal allowed.

Bypass appeal dismissed because Appellants had filed for binding arbitration regarding this bypass.

Superior Court remanded case to Commission after determining that issue currently before arbitrator did not pertain to whether or not the City had reasonable justification to bypass the Appellants.

Appeals dismissed without prejudice as an arbitrator has already addressed the issue of whether the City was justified in bypassing the Appellants. Appellant’s may initiate new bypass appeals if they are bypassed after the new selection processed which was ordered by the arbitrator.

Mutual agreement. Joint Request for Relief under Chapter 310 of the Acts of 1993. Allowed.

Psychological screening process, which was used to justify bypass, was tainted by personal bias. Bypass appeal allowed.

Superior Court upheld Commission's decision to allow the Appellant's bypass appeal. Commission had determined that the psychological examination used a basis for bypass was tainted with personal bias.

The Department presented substantial evidence, through both oral testimony and corroborating documentation, that on two separate occasions, the Appellant's behavior evidenced a total lack of judgment and inability to supervise. Bypass appeal dismissed.

Since the Appellant did not return from Brazil and move in with his sister's thenfiance until June 2004, he missed qualifying for Boston's Residential Preference by at least 31 days. Without the above-referenced residential preference, the Appellant's namecan not be included on the certification list (on which he was ranked 13th) with other Boston residents. Since all of the candidates selected for the nine (9) appointments in this case were from the list of Boston residents, there was no bypass in this case. Bypass appeal dismissed.

A 3-2 majority of the Commission concluded that there was not justification to bypass the Appellant based on the psychological evaluation performed by their psychologists. Bypass appeal allowed.

BPD did not provide vaild reasons for bypassing the Appellant. Bypass appeal allowed.

The Department's positive reasons for selecting the lower-ranked candidate provided reasonable justification for bypassing the Appellant. Bypass appeal dismissed.

Department of Correction did not establish just cause for bypassing the Appellant for original appointment as a police officer. They relied on an unwritten and overly broad guideline that prohibits indidivuals with "any CORI acitivity" in the past five years from being appointed. Bypass appeal allowed

DOC's Motion for Reconsideration denied.

The Appellant's appeal was not timely. He was notified of bypass decision on June 30, 2006. The Appellant's appeal was received by the Commission on September 14, 2006, more than 60 days later. The bypass statute limitations adopted by the Commission in 2000 states that a bypass appeal must be received by the Commission within 60 days of the Appellant being notified of the bypass decision. Bypass appeal dismissed.

Department was unable to show that the Appellant was untruthful regarding the reasons surrounding his termination from a prior employer, the reason given for bypass. Bypass appeal allowed.

The appointment process was tainted with bias and/or favoritism. Bypass appeal allowed.

The Boston Police Department had reasonable justification to bypass the Appellant based on the findings of the psychological screening. Bypass appeal dismissed.

The City of failed to sufficiently support the claim that Appellant withheld information pertaining to his prior employment and his poor driving record was too stale to justify his bypass. Bypass appeal allowed.

Appellant’s appeal was granted. The Appointing Authority bypassed the Appellant based on erroneous information, concluding that the Appellant was terminated from the Department of Correction when in fact he had resigned

The Boston Police Department had reasonable justification to bypass the Appellant based on the findings of the psychological screening. Bypass appeal dismissed.

The Appellant, who was at the top of the special certification list for applicants proficient in Spanish, challenged the City of Somerville’s decision to close the certification process and not select any firefighters for original appointment off that list. The Commission granted the City of Somerville’s Motion to Dismiss for failing to state an actionable claim. Because no firefighters were selected off the list, there was not a bypass to appeal.

DOC did not show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it had reasonable justification to bypass the Appellant for the position of Correction Officer I. Bypass appeal allowed.

The Appellant tied for second place on the most recent certification list. The Appointing Authority selected the other applicant. When the Appointing Authority has two applicants tied on the list and chooses one, no bypass occurred. The Appellant’s bypass appeal was therefore dismissed.

Considering the fact that the BPD's psychiatrists found no reliable historical evidence or any objective reason to conclude that Ms. Coutts could not successfully perform the duties of an armed police officer and also found no disqualifying mental impairment in October 2006 and that the Appointing Authority has put forth no evidence to establish any change in the Appellant’s psychological makeup during the 4 months between examinations, it is clear that the Appointing Authority has failed to establish sound and sufficient reasons for this bypass. Bypass appeal allowed.

Department of Correction had reasonable justification to bypass the Appellant for the position of correction officer as he failed to meet required medical standards.

The Appellant’s Motion for Summary Decision was allowed in part, because there was no genuine issue of fact concerning the Appointing Authority’s failure to follow Civil Service law in the manner they promoted a Junior Custodian over 3 Senior Custodians (the Appellants). The Commission rescinded the appointment of that Junior Custodian and erased any seniority time he may have accrued during the erroneous appointment. However, the Commission noted they can not order the Appointing Authority to fill the two available positions, or order specifically that any of the Appellants fill those positions if the Appointing Authority chooses to fill them.

The Appellant’s appeal of a bypass for Sergeant in the Arlington Police Department was granted in part. The Appointing Authority failed to substantially demonstrate 2 of the 3 reasons for the bypass and disregarded the considerable disparity in the civil service scores between the Appellant and the other 2 applicants. However, the Appointing Authority established that the Appellant’s rigid “black and white” perspective to enforcing city bylaws and ordinances reasonably concerned the Appointing Authority. The Town of Arlington is ordered to place the Appellant at the top of the list for eligible candidates for sergeant after January 1, 2010, a year after this decision.

The Boston Police Department was justified in bypassing the Appellant after she was deemed psychologically unfit to perform the duties of a Boston police officer by two psychiatrist. Bypass appeal dismissed.

The Appellant’s bypass appeal was dismissed. The City of Boston demonstrated reasonable justification in bypassing the Appellant, due to her prior criminal record.

The Boston Police Department had the authority to bypass the Appellant based on a one year restraining order filed against the Appellant 11 years previous, in part because of the disturbing concerns raised by the restraining order and because there was no suggestion of improper motivation or bias on the part of the Boston Police Department. The Appellant’s appeal was dismissed.

DOC was justified in bypassing Appellant whose boyfriend, who is the father of her children, is an inmate. Commission concluded that limited relief was warranted, however. Appellant shall be reconsidered by DOC upon the release of her boyfriend as an inmate.

The Appellant and the individual promoted were tied on the certification list and the Commission has well-established that choosing from among tied candidates does not constitute a bypass that can be appealed to the Commission. The Appellant’s bypass appeal was dismissed.

The Appellant's background investigation provided reasonable justification to bypass her for appointment. Appeal dismissed.

The Boston Police Department had reasonable justification to bypass the Appellant due to the array of criminal charges levied against him and the several years he has spent on probation. The Appellant’s appeal was dismissed.

The Appellant resigned from his position as junior custodian at the Boston Public Schools and one month later sought to be reinstated. When Boston Public Schools declined to reinstate the Appellant to his former position, he filed an appeal with the Civil Service Commission. The Commission did not have jurisdiction, however, because the Appellant was not disciplined or terminated, nor was the Appellant entitled to reinstatement because the Appointing Authority has the discretion to choose not to reinstate him, which they exercised. The Appellant’s appeal was dismissed.

The Appellant filed an appeal alleging she was bypassed for originalappointment by the Boston School Department and requesting that the Commission enforce its earlier 1996 decision on the Appellant’s 1991 bypass for a Clerk/Typist position. However, for several reasons the Commission had to dismiss the case. First, the Appellant’s eligibility for certification had expired; second, the Boston School Department was limited to the lists issued by HRD, that twice omitted the Appellant; and third, the Appellant had no vested rights in an original appointment. However, even though the Civil Service Commission adopted a 60 day statute of limitations for bypass appeals in 2000, the Appellant’s present appeal concerns enforcing a bypass decision of the Civil Service Commission before that rule was created so the rule did not apply and preclude the appeal as untimely. Nevertheless, for the other listed reasons the Appellant’s appeal was dismissed.

The positive reasons of the selected candidate justified the Town's decision to bypass the Appellant for promotion to sergeant. Bypass appeal dismissed.

The Appellant filed a bypass appeal challenging the reasonable justification of the Boston Police Department in bypassing him for original appointment as a police officer. The Appellant had a “highly problematic driving history” and had at least 3 surchargeable accidents. However, the reason that rang hollow for the Commission is the past termination, which seemed premised on vindictive motivations; the Appointing Authority can not use a past termination as justification for a bypass without determining by a preponderance of the evidence that the termination was actually due to the applicant’s dereliction. Those two reasons which were established are substantial and sufficient standing alone to justify the bypass, because they are rationally related to and may properly be used to gauge the applicant’s fitness to perform the duties and responsibilities of the position of police officer. The Appellant’s appeal was dismissed.

Based upon a preponderance of the credible evidence presented at hearing, theCommission finds that the Appointing Authority sustained its burden of proving reasonable justification for bypassing the Appellant. The Town’s primary reason for bypassing the Appellant was the fact that the successful candidates did not have any entries on their criminal records or driving records and because the successful candidates performed better and were truthful in their respective interviews. The Appellant’s driving record includes numerous motor vehicle infractions, and when asked about his past criminal record, the Appellant was not forthcoming. The appeal was dismissed.

Information from the background investigation of the Appellant provided the Boston Police Department with reasonable justification to bypass the Appellant. Bypass appeal dismissed.

The Civil Service Commission adopted the recommended decision of the Administrative Law Magistrate and dismissed the Appellant’s appeal. The Boston Police Department had reasonable justification to decline to appoint the appellant as a police officer, due to 2 restraining orders filed against her and several instances of domestic disputes requiring police intervention. Hence, the appeal was dismissed.