Bypass Appeal Decisions M-S

Commission upheld Town's decision to bypass candidate for original appointment. Superior Court affirmed decision of the Commission.

Appellant contested HRD’s decision to approve the City’s request to reinstate another individual instead of appointing Appellant to the promotional position of sergeant. Even though there was an active eligibility, the City met all the requirements under Section 46 in reinstating the other individual; and the reinstatement is consistent with basic merit principles. Appeal dismissed.

The Appellant's criminal history and poor driving record provided the City of Boston with reasonable justification for bypasing him for appointment. Appeal dismissed.

The City did establish by substantial and credible evidence that the Appellant has a poor driving history and lied or made a serious error of judgment on his employment application, thus justifying his bypass. Bypass appeal dismissed.

The Town had reasonable justification for bypassing the Appellant for promotional appointment to sergeant. Appeal dismissed.

The Town did not provide sound and sufficient reasons for bypassing the Appellant for the position of police officer. Bypass appeal allowed.

The Appellant has not shown why the 60-day deadline for filing a bypass appeal should be tolled. Appeal dismissed.

Absent a clear judicial directive to the contrary, the Commission will not abrogate its recent decisions that allow appointing authorities sound discretion to post a vacancy as either a promotional or original provisional appointment, unless the evidence suggests that an appointing authority is using the Section 12 provisional "appointment" process as a subterfuge for selection of a specific candidate who would not be eligible for provisional “promotion” over other equally qualified choices.

The Appellant's failure to provide the Police Department with a complete application, including a credit report, provided them with reasonable justification to bypass him as a police officer. Bypass appeal dismissed.

The City had reasonable justification for bypassing the Appellant as a police officer due to his inability to control his temper regarding incidents involving the Medford Police Department. Bypass appeal dismissed.

The Town was justified in bypassing the Appellant for multiple reasons including misrepresenations about his extensive driving history and past criminal behavior, including assault and battery and OUI. Appeal dismissed.

There is nothing in the record that supports the result of the psychological whch concluded that the Appellant has difficulty managing the stresses inherent in police work and would have problems exercising good judgment when under pressure.

Commission Decision Overturned.

Appellant, who is a BERS C, has no standing to appeal DTA's decision not to select him for a provisional BERS C vacancy. Appeal dismissed.

The City had reasonable justification to bypass the Appellant for original appointment as a firefighter based on his background of domestic violence. Bypass appeal dismissed.

The City had reasonable justification for bypassing the Appellant for appointment as a firefighter / paramedic as it is undisputed that a local hospital twice prohibited the Appellant from transporting patients to their facility because of his interactions with female employees and that his immature practical joke while employed with another ambulance company resulted in another female employee filing a complaint. In comparison, the City had no such concerns with the selected candidate. Bypass appeal dismissed.

The Department of Revenue had reasonable justification for bypassing a candidate for a provisional promotion due to her poor performance evaluations which she had not disputed. Bypass appeal dismissed.

No individual ranked below the Appellant was selected for appointment. Bypass appeal dismissed.

Based on the results of the BPD's psychological evaluation of the Appellant, the Department had reasonable justification to bypass the Appellant for the position of police officer. Bypass appeal dismissed.

Appointing Authority failed to substantiate reasons for bypass - poor leadership and poor past performance. Appeal allowed.

Under Section 15, only a "civil service employee" with permanency may be provisionally promoted, and once such employee is so promoted, she may be further provisionally promoted for "sound and sufficient reasons" to another higher title for which she may subsequently be qualified, only if there are no qualified permanent civil service employees in the next lower title.

Appellants are permanent civil service employees in the next lower title. DOR promoted two other employees who were not permanent civil service employees. Appellants were deemed "qualified" by Commission. Hence, since this was a provisional PROMOTION, DOR erred in not selecting them for the provisional promotion. DOR ordered to consider Appellants for next vacancies. Going forward, if DOR chooses to post a vacancy as a provisional PROMOTION, it must comply with the applicable sections of the civil service law which requires selection of a permanent civil service employee and one in the next lower title if he / she is deemed qualified.

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 Boston Police Department was justified in bypassing the Appellant for the position of police officer after she tested positive for the presence of anabolic steroids. Bypass appeal dismissed.

Superior Court vacated and nullified Commission decision.

Under Section 15, only a "civil service employee" with permanency may be provisionally promoted, and once such employee is so promoted, she may be further provisionally promoted for "sound and sufficient reasons" to another higher title for which she may subsequently be qualified, only if there are no qualified permanent civil service employees in the next lower title .

The Town was justified in bypassing the Appellant for multiple reasons including misrepresentations about this prior driving record.

Civil Service law or rules did not require the Town to select the Appellant for a provisional promotion, even if he had the most seniority and it was a past practice of the Town to use seniority when making such appointments. Appeal dismissed.

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

There was no bypass as nobody below the Appellant on the civil service list was selected for appointment in those locations where the Appellant indicated he was willing to accept appointment. DOC's motion to dismiss allowed and Appellant's bypass appeal dismissed.

DOC had reasonable justification to remove the Appellant from an eligibile list of candidates as he was not qualified for the position of Industrial Instructor III

Boston Police Department's Motion for Reconsideration denied.

The Appellant's background investigation, which revealed a troubling police incident report and discipline while enlisted in the military, provided DOC with reasonable justification to bypass the Appellant as a correction officer. Bypass appeal dismissed.

The Appellant did not perform as well as others on the interview portion of the selection process. Department was justified in bypassing him. Bypass appeal dismissed.

3-2 majority ruled that the City had not shown, by a prepoderance of the evidence, that the Appellant had used marijuanna, the reason for bypass. Bypass appeal allowed.

By a 3-1 vote, the Commission concluded that the the psychological evaluation of the Appellant did not produces reasons sufficient to bypass the Appellant. Bypass appeal allowed.

No bypass occurred because there was no promotional appointment of a Fire Chief. Rather, the lower-ranked candidate withdrew his name for consideration after learning of the offered salary, thus creating a "short list" from which the City was not required to promote from. Bypass appeal dismissed.

Single justice denied Appellant's request to remand case to Commission as well as request for injunctive relief.