- The Appellant is not entitled to the retroactive seniority date requested. Appeal dismissed.
- The City had reasonable justification for terminating the Appellant for taking an unauthorized leave of absence for a significant amount of time and failure to report. Appeal dismissed.
- The City’s Motion to Dismiss is allowed and appeal dismissed after Appellant took unauthorized lengthy leave of absence. Due to the fact that the Appellant was deemed to have permanently and voluntarily separated himself from his employment, the Commission lacks jurisdiction to review the matter.
- Commission upheld its longstanding prohibition against acting / out-of-grade apppointments by orderign the City to comply with civil service law and make permanent, temporary or provisional appointments to various positions. Appeals allowed in part.
Anderson, Adonna v. Saugus Public Schools 1/7/10 file size 1MBThe Appellant was reassigned and not transferred. Therefore, the Commission has no jurisdiction to hear her appeal. Appeal dismissed.
Baldassari and 3 Others v. City of Revere 3/8/12 file size 1MB
The Appellants "died on the vine" of an eligible list and their only recourse was to take and score high enough on a subsequent exam to be placed on the next eligible list. Appeals dismissed.
- In lieu of the facts and law, conducting further investigation into banding of police promotional scores was not justified. The use of banding is not a violation of the Personnel Administration Rules or civil service law as the methodology by which HRD scores examinations is left to the sound discretion of the Personnel Administrator. Petition dismissed.
- Union Appellants did not have standing to appeal as they were not “persons aggrieved” who have suffered “actual harm” to their “employment status” at the time of appeal; and non-union Appellants did not have standing as they were not persons who had been “aggrieved’” by the actions of the Personnel Administrator. Dismissal ordered.
- Superior Court enjoined HRD from "banding" scores related to police promotional examinations.
- The Commission has no jurisdiction to hear a termination appeal from a provisional employee. Further, even if the Appellant were not a provisional employee, he had not served his 6-month probationary period. Appeal Dismissed.
- City failed to comply with statutory requirements related to Appellant's reinstatement rights. Appeal allowed in part.
- Appellant has shown that Lawrence is improperly using "Acting" designation for Fire Chief instead of a method required under civil serivce law (i.e. - provisional, temporary). City ordered to comply with civil service law within 10 days.
- Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association appeal of HRD’s decision to transfer individuals from the Boston Municipal Police Department to the Boston Police Department is dismissed. Petitioners lacked standing and failed to provide any evidence or legal support establishing that the City or HRD owed any duty to the Petitioners.
- Appellants seeking permanent civil service status were prejudiced through no fault of their own, and pursuant to the Commission’s powers inherent in Chapter 310 of the Acts of 1993, the Commission granted 23 provisional employees permanency in their respective positions within the Boston Municipal Police Department.
- Appeal from the decision of HRD to transfer 33 officers from the BMPD to the Boston Police Department, but did not assent to the transfer of the 27 Appellant officers. The Commission found Appellants have no statutory right under Section 40 to be transferred. A transfer is subject to the approval of HRD, and Appellants did not meet the requirements to be transferred to the Boston Police Department. Appeal dismissed
- The Suffolk Superior Court’s Decision affirming all of the decisions made by the Civil Service Commission in regards to BPPA et al v. City of Boston.
- Appellants sought an investigation into a 2002 promotional examination established by HRD for the ranks of lieutenant and captain; specifically, whether the scoring of the examinations constituted a fair test of the abilities for the required positions. Being informed that something will not be on an examination and then having it tested is unfair, thus appeal allowed with respect to the Rule 200 issue only and dismissed with respect to the other issues brought forth in the appeal.
- The Commission’s decision on Motion for Reconsideration filed by certain Appellants and clarification of the Commission’s decision regarding the case BPSOF v. HRD and City of Boston 1/31/08.
- The Suffolk Superior Court’s found Plaintiff is not entitled to preliminary relief in the form of a preliminary injunction as Plaintiff was unable to show that he timely filed his appeal form with HRD.
- Due to inadvertence none of the Appellants were permanently appointed to the positions they held provisionally, despite having taken the applicable civil service examination. HRD and Appellants mutually agreed that Appellants were warranted permanency in their positions with a retroactive seniority date. The Commission so orders.
- The Appellant could not show that he was similarly situated to other officers granted relief in Quaglietta et al v. City of Lawrence. Appeal dismissed.
- Appellant took and passed exam for custodian and should have been deemed permanent at the time. 310 Relief granted.
- The City's determination to terminate a probationary employee was in error. Since the Chief of Police, and not the Mayor (the Appointing Authority), served the termination on the Appellant, the Commission ruled that the Appellant was a tenured employee by operation of law.
- Commission decision vacated. Appeals court ruled that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to hear appeal because the Appellant was a probationary employee at the time he filed his appeal with the Commission.
- 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 Commission did not have jurisdiction hear this appeal regarding a wrtten and verbal warning. Appeal dismissed.
- Appellant firefighters alleged that they lost the opportunity to be considered for employment during the life of an eligibility list when HRD failed to issue a required certification to the City one day prior to the expiration date of eligibility list. However, HRD was not required to issue a certification to the City; and moreover, Appellants were not even ranked at the top of the list to be considered. Appeal dismissed.
- Appellant, who received a two day suspension, asserted a Section 42 “procedural” claim contesting the City’s failed to afford Appellant a timely hearing, as well as a Section 43 “just cause” claim. Under Section 42 one can appeal a 5 day or less suspension without local hearing; and Appellant, in effect, waived his Section 42 claim when appealed his suspension after receiving notice that he would receive a hearing. Section 42 appeal dismissed. Section 43 appeal scheduled for a full hearing.
- The Commission concluded that further investigation of the Board's hiring practices requested by the petitioners is not warranted at this time.
- HRD was statutorily required to remove the Appellant's name from the eligible list after two years. Appeal dismissed.
- The Appellant is entitled to E&E credit for his time served as a police officer in another state, but this time may not be counted toward the 2-point statutotry preference provided to officers with 25 or more years of (in-state) experience. Appeal allowed in part.
- HRD erred when it determined that the Appellant could not be reinstated to his position within 5 years if there was an active eligible list for the position. Appeal allowed.
- The Appellant's appeal was dismissed as she was reasssigned, not transferred from Boston to Quincy, along with all of her co-workers as aprt of an office relocation. Further, the Commission does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal under Section 35 for employees hired after 1968. Appeal dismissed.
- Action by the City to reassign Appellant was consistent within her ‘”intermittent” employee position and consistent with the terms and conditions of applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement. As such, Appellant is not an aggrieved party in accordance with G.L. c. 31, § 41 and the Commission lacked jurisdiction. Appeal dismissed.
- Recession of a conditional promotion after failing to obtain a Grade 2 water supply license is appropriate. Appellant was promoted into the position on the condition that he obtains the license within 6 months of his promotion. Four years passed and Appellant was unable to obtain the required license. Appeal dismissed.
The Town chose to seek a special certification of individuals who were paramedics. The Appellant is not a paramedic. Thus, he was not on the Certification and there was no bypass. Appeal dismissed.
- Appellants appealed from the action of the Boston Police Department in filling a lieutenant and captain position through “out of grade” temporary assignments, thereby bypassing the temporary and permanent promotion procedures under G.L. c. 31. Delays to promote were through no fault of the Appellants. Request for retroactive seniority dates granted.
- Appellant appealed the decision by HRD not to grant him two additional training and experience points on his promotional examination for lieutenant under G.L. c. 31 §59. Section 22 allows HRD to designate how applicants are to receive credit for training and experience; and the instructions for the promotional examination at the basis of this appeal clearly indicate that the applicant’s experiences is calculated as of the date of the examination and not as the City’s requisition. HRD’s decision to deny Appellant the 25 –year employment credit was correct. Appeal denied.
- Appellant alleged that she was denied her right to bump a position held by a less senior employee and was forced to take a position that became available due to retirement or resignation of other employees. However, G.L. c. 31 does not bestow the right to bump any less senior employee as the result of this would be to set off a chain reaction of additional bumps of displaced employees. Appellant was never denied any rights under G.L. c. 31. Appeal dismissed.
- HRD was statutorily required to remove the Appellant's name from the eligible list after two years. Appeal dismissed.
- HRD erroneously denied the Appellants the opportunity to sit for a promotional examination by misinterpreting Section 59 and an Appeals Court decision. Appeals allowed.
- Appellant contended that the awarding by HRD of two points for veteran status to the Lieutenant of the City’s fire department, after the competitive promotional examination enabled the Lieutenant’s name to be placed higher on the list, thus, bypassing the Appellant for promotion to the position of Captain. The Commission found Appellant failed to name the correct party in his appeal and that HRD adjusted the certification lists in accordance with applicable Civil Service laws, policies and procedures. Appeal dismissed.
- After the Town decided to eliminate the position of General Foreman, which was held by the Appellants, and replace it with a newly-created title of Crew Chief, for which the Appellants both applied but were not selected for, Appellants appealed. Relief requested by Appellant Dailey, who had since retired fell outside the purview of the Commission. Appeal dismissed. To determine whether the Town may have circumvented the laws as to Appellant’s Donahue’s appeal, case scheduled for a full hearing.
- Based upon the testimony and exhibits presented at the full hearing, the Commission concluded the position of General Foreman in the Town of Weymouth is not subject to civil service laws, thus Commission has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Further, the decision of the Town to abolish the position of General Foreman and replace it with the position of Crew Chief is beyond the scope of Commission’s jurisdiction. Appeal dismissed.
- The City’s Motion to Dismiss Appellant’s appeal was granted as Appellant “permanently and voluntarily” separated himself from his employment when he failed to pursue a leave of absence in compliance with the requirements of G.L. c. 31 §38.
- Appellant who appealed the decision of the Registry of Motor Vehicles and Merit Rating Board to bypass him for original appointment to the position of EDP Entry Operator II, failed to attend two status conferences as scheduled by the Commission. Accordingly, appeal dismissed for failure to prosecute his own appeal.
- The Appellant's request for 310 relief was denied as she was not harmed through no fault of her own. She put the wrong address into the online exam registration system at HRD and, thus, did not receive notification of vacancies for police officer in Boston. Appeal dismissed.
- The City complied with the requirements of making a provisional appointment and selected a qualified candidate. Appeal dismissed.
- Commission determined Appellant through no fault of his own was prejudiced when the Town failed to submit the request for a certification from HRD to facilitate his promotion until weeks after Appellant was promoted to the position of full-time permanent police sergeant. Chapter 310 relief granted based upon the unique set of facts in this case.
- HRD has a longstanding practice of withholding a certification to an appointing authority that has disability retirees medically cleared by the Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission to return to duty for the position of Lieutenant in the Medford Fire Department; in order to comply with G.L. c. 31 § 39, in conjunction with G.L. c. 32 §8, requiring that disability retirees who have been medically cleared by PERAC be placed in an available position prior to any appointment from a civil service list. Consequently, Appellants appeal to overturn HRD’s decision not to release a promotional certification list for the Lieutenant position when three retirees were awaiting reinstatement from accidental disability retirement is dismissed.
- Appellant alleged that the Department of Social Services violated the basic merit principles of G.L. c. 31 by failing to fill vacancies from active civil service lists, providing infrequent examinations from which lists for appointments could be generated, preventing a number from being considered for promotion and making provisional appointments. After numerous conferences, Appellant, HRD, and DSS reached an agreement to grant Appellant 310 relief, including permanency to provisional DSS employees. The Commission so orders.
- Appellant sought review of the City of Quincy’s reasons for bypassing him for original/promotional appointment to the labor service position of Full Time Special Heavy Motor Equipment Operator. At the full hearing before the Commission, the City of Quincy failed to appear; however, this alone did warrant a grant of Appellant’s appeal. Full hearing to be re-scheduled forthwith.
- The Boston Police Department and HRD violated G.L. c. 31 when they skipped over and refused to process Appellants’ names on a certification where both Appellants signed indicating their willingness to be hired off such certification and where neither Appellant had been contacted, processed, removed or bypassed off such certification. Appeals allowed and 310 relief granted ordering the Boston Police Department and HRD to immediately process the Appellants’ certification for the position of police officer.
- Boston Police Department and HRD requested reconsideration of the Commission’s prior decision. The Commission found it overlooked the fact that there were other individuals similar to the Appellants that were not granted the same relief; that given the number of veteran’s names that would have appeared higher than the Appellants on certification, Appellant’s name would not have been high enough to be considered for appointment; and the prior majority decision went beyond the limited issue of determining whether the BPD had sound and sufficient reasons for seeking an extension of the certification. Appellants’ appeals denied and dismissed.
- Dismissed as untimely.
- Appellant and the City of Waltham jointly sought to place Appellant at the top of the current eligibility list for the title of Clerk in the City of Waltham. The Commission found that 310 relief could not be granted because Appellant was hired into a non-civil service position through a non-civil service process.
- Appellant’s allegation that the Department of Correction decided to give another individual preference regarding shift selection and days-off selection based upon ranking on the Certification was in error. Neither the Appellant’s civil service seniority date nor his ranking on the Certification in question pertained to job picks, transfers, shift selection or days-off selection. Each of these areas is governed by the collective bargaining agreement between the parties. Nothing in the civil service law connects civil service seniority (or an individual’s ranking on a Certification) to the allocation of shift selection or days-off selection. Appeal dismissed.
- Request for investigation denied. Issued raised in request for investigation have been addressed by Commission through individual decisions.
- It was Appellant’s own failure to access the requisite website until months after he received the form from HRD which resulted in Appellant failing to appear at a Physical Abilities Test as opposed to any inaction on the part of HRD. Appeal dismissed.
- Appellant appealed decision by HRD declining to change a Certification of eligible candidates for reserve police officer issued to the City of Gloucester to reflect his claim of veteran’s preference approved after the Certification had issued. The Commission recognized that the appointment process had proceeded well beyond the establishment of an eligible list before the Appellant made his claim known to HRD, but the circumstances of the case still justified the Commission to exercise its discretionary power to grant 310 relief so that Appellant is assured at least one future opportunity to be considered for appointment as a police officer which had been denied to be him through no fault of his own. Appeal allowed in part.
- A joint request to correct the Appellant’s appointment date which had never properly been recorded due to an administrative error was accepted. Chapter 310 relief granted ordering the Appellant’s correct appointment date and civil service seniority date be established accordingly.
- Based on the unique facts of this case, 310 relief is warranted in the form of a retroactive seniority date for cviil service purposes only.
- BPD had the authority to deem a vacancy as temporary and there was no political or personal bias shown in regard to their decision. Appeal dismissed.
- The Appellant was not aggrieved by HRD's decision to not allow her to re-take an ELPAT which she began and failed the first two portions of the test before stating she was too ill to continue. Appeal dismissed.
- Appellant has no right to an appeal when he retired almost simultaneously to the issuance of a suspension for sick leave abuse and several other charges related to the operation of his K-9 business. Appellant had the option to remain employed by the Department and contest the suspension, but did not, therefore Appellant was not an aggrieved party in accordance with G.L. c. 31 §41. Appeal dismissed.
- Appellant, a veteran, contended that the Registry of Motor Vehicles failed to provide him with the statutory preference granted to him under G.L. c. 31, § 26 when they made provisional appointments to the position of Driver License Examiner. It was undisputed however, that the Registry filled the two vacant positions with individuals who were veterans proving compliance with G.L. c. 31, Section 26. Appeal dismissed.
- Upon Motion for Reconsideration the Commission determined based on existing law that the higher preference for disabled veteran provided by G.L. c. 31, Section 26 does not apply to provisional appointments. Original decision affirmed.
Guimont, Raymond v. City of New Bedford 2/18/10 file size 1MBThe Appellant's reinstatment rights were not violated. Appeal dismissed.
- Appellant’s motion to seal his record and enjoin HRD and the Boston Police Department from disclosing certain documents was denied. Appellant failed to establish a sufficient reason to make an exception to the Commission’s long-standing policy to treat any part of the record of an appeal as open to the public.
- The position of Assistant Cook Manager should be treated as a labor service title position as opposed to an official service position. Accordingly, the Fall River School Committee was fully justified to bypass Appellant for an individual that has a more senior labor service registration and seniority date. Appeal dismissed.
- The Appellants were reassigned, not transferred. Thus, the Commission has no jurisdiction to hear these appeals. Dismissed.
- The Appellant has shown that he should have a civil service seniority date back to the day he began peforming the duties of a full-time police officer. Appeal allowed.
- The Appellant was never a civil service employee. Thus, she can not appeal her termination to the Civil Service Commission. Appeal dismissed.
- Commission declined to grant permanency to provisional employee who failed civil service examination and did not have proper certifications at time of examination.
- Superior Court affirmed Commission decision. The Commission is not obligated to grant permanency to a provisional employee solely because there have been no civil service examinations administered for the position in question for many years.
- The City has been ordered to end the practice of using "acting, out-of-grade" appointments that are not permitted under civil service law or rules.
- The Commission can not provide 310 relief to Appellant when there has already been a settlement between the parties and so ordered by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination.
- HRD properly corrected an administrative error that resulted in the Appellants having an incorrect civil service seniority date. Appeals dismissed.
- Appellant’s appeal failed due to lack of jurisdiction because housing authority employees’ rights are limited when compared to other civil service employees. Housing authority employees can only appeal layoffs and terminations. There was no involuntary separation in this case. Appeal dismissed.
- HRD misinterpreted Section 59 and an Appeals court decision in determining that the Appellant was ineligible to sit for a promotional examination. Appeal allowed.
- An additional appeal relating to cases: BPSOF v. HRD; City of Boston 1/31/08; BPSOF v. HRD; and City of Boston Order of Clarification 6/12/08. Appellants’ appeal was already been addressed through these prior Commission decisions. Appeal dismissed.
Joseph, Paul et al v. Human Resources Division 4/8/10 file size 1MBMotion to re-open hearing denied.
- HRD erred when it determined that the Appellant could not be reinstated to his position within 5 years if there is an active eligible list for the position. Appeal allowed.
- The Commission reconsidered their prior holding that Appellant’s bypass for a provisional promotion within a Child Support Enforcement Specialist position was justified, and found that there were two factors that were overlooked at the time of the decision. Specifically, that the earlier allegation of HRD inaction was not supported by the evidence; and the potential for undue harm to the families of Massachusetts. DOR’s Motion for Reconsideration allowed. Appellant’s appeal dismissed.
- Appellant appealed from not being selected by the City to a provisional promotion to the position of Supervisor of Parking Meter Operations, a position for which no eligible civil service list exists, thus there was no basis for the appeal. Appeal dismissed.
- The Appellant was unable to show sufficient reasons to re-open his bypass appeal which was voluntarily withdrawn over a year ago. Motion to Re-Open denied.
- Appellants appealed the decision of HRD to cancel a promotional examination for the position of lieutenant in the Boston Fire Department. Appellants were merely speculating that they may have done well on the specific examination, and they may have received a lesser score on the future examination, therefore they were not already harmed nor persons aggrieved in order to bring the appeal. Appeal dismissed.
People also viewed...
You recently viewed...
Personalization is OFF. Your personal browsing history at Mass.gov is not visible because your personalization is turned off. To view your history, turn your personalization on.
Learn more on our .
*Recommendations are based on site visitor traffic patterns and are not endorsements of that content.