- Dalrymple and Sexton v. Boston Police Department 02/12/09
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.
- Daniels, Harry and 5 Others v. Boston Fire Department and HRD 1/10/13
- Defelice, Marco v. City of Quincy 6/11/15
- DeFrancesco, James v. Human Resources Division - Related Superior Court Decision 11/18/09
Superior Court affirmed Commission decision.
- DeFrancesco, James v. Human Resources Division 12/04/08 (Affirmed by Superior Court on 11/18/09)
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.
- Delaney, Elizabeth v. Worcester Public Schools 4/5/07
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.
- Delaney, Michael v. Human Resources Division 2/24/11
HRD was statutorily required to remove the Appellant's name from the eligible list after two years. Appeal dismissed.
- Department of Correction Captain Examination Investigation 5/28/15
- Department of Correction: 2011 Review and Selection of Correction Officers 9/8/11
- DeSimone, Joseph v. City of Cambridge 6/16/11
- Dickie, Sandra v. Human Resources Division 5/25/17
- Dickinson and Hallisey v. Human Resources Division 4/21/11
HRD erroneously denied the Appellants the opportunity to sit for a promotional examination by misinterpreting Section 59 and an Appeals Court decision. Appeals allowed.
- Diiorio, Ariann v. City of Worcester & HRD 7/10/14
- DiSpena, Christian v. Human Resources Division 12/22/16
- Dockery, Armando v. City of Waltham 7/26/07
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.
- Donahue and Dailey v. Town of Weymouth 7/12/07
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.
- Donahue, John v. Town of Weymouth 9/27/07
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.
- Donnelly, David v. Cambridge Public Schools 12/04/08
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.
- Dorsey, Sara v. Boston Police Department 3/3/16
- Dowd, Thomas v. RMV and Merit Rating Board 11/22/06
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.
- Doyle, Julie v. Human Resources Division 3/24/11
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.
- Dupont, Matthew v. Human Resources Division 10/27/16
- Dussault, Phillip v. Worcester Public Schools 7/26/12
- Egersheim, Gene v. City of Boston 4/22/10
The City complied with the requirements of making a provisional appointment and selected a qualified candidate. Appeal dismissed.
- Ellis, Brendan v. Town of Ashland and HRD 4/3/08
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.
- Erickson, Craig v. Rockland Fire Department 1/24/13
- Erickson, Craig v. Rockland Fire Department 5/31/12
- Erickson, Jamie v. Springfield Fire Department 3/20/14
- Faggiano, Jones and Cappuccio v. City of Medford 7/3/08
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.
- Felder et al v. DSS 2/7/08
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.
- Fiore, Russell v. Department of State Police 2/20/14
- Fitzgerald, Ryan v. HRD 5/28/15
- Flaherty and McCarthy v. Boston Police Department 1/29/09
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.
- Flaherty and McCarthy v. HRD reconsideration 2/26/09 (Under Appeal)
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.
- Flaherty, James v. City of Quincy 2/26/09
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.
- Flynn, John and 8 Others v. Boston Police Department Procedural Order 5/12/11
- Flynn, Michael v. City of Attleboro 5/6/10
Dismissed as untimely.
- Foley, Jacqueline v. City of Waltham and HRD 8/28/08
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.
- Fontaine, Robert v. Human Resources Division 9/8/11
- Forgues, Peter v. Department of Correction 12/11/08
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.
- Forrest, Lauren v. Weymouth Fire Department 9/3/15
- Fortunatti, Manuel v. Human Resources Division 6/11/15
- Foster, Thomas and 7 Others v. Department of Transitional Assistance 11/4/10
Request for investigation denied. Issued raised in request for investigation have been addressed by Commission through individual decisions.
- Gagnon, Abel v. City of Chicopee 1/12/12
- Galgay, Conor v. Human Resources Division 3/5/09
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.
- Gaynor, Barry and 7 Others v. Boston Fire Department Procedural Order 6/1/11
- Gaynor, Barry and Elven Others v. Boston Fire Department 5/3/12
- Giacalone, Jr., Anthony v. HRD 8/14/08
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.
- Gifford, David v. Town of Acushnet 5/15/08
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.
- Gillan, John v. City of Quincy 1/27/11
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.
- Gillespie, Joseph and 3 Others v. Boston Police Department 4/7/11
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.
- Gleason, Shawn v. Human Resources Division 1/7/16
- Goggin, Michael v. Boston Police Dept. & HRD 2/4/16
- Goggin, Michael v. Boston Police Dept. & HRD 3/17/16
- Golner, Barry v. Human Resources Division 8/6/15
- Goodman, Kimberly v. Human Resources Division 9/23/10
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.
- Grace, Edward v. Boston Police Department and HRD 4/2/15
- Grassi, Joseph v. Human Resources Division 9/8/11
- Gray, Ronald v. Department of State Police 7/17/08
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.
- Grealish, Matthew v. Registry of Motor Vehicles 4/10/08
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.
- Grealish, Matthew v. Registry of Motor Vehicles Decision on Motion for Reconsideration 7/24/08
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.
- Greeley, Darrin v. Human Resources Division 9/1/16
- Grenier, Pierre v. Human Resources Division 12/8/16
- Griffin, Michael v. Salem Police Department & HRD 7/10/14
- Guimont, Raymond v. City of New Bedford 2/18/10 file size 1MB
The Appellant's reinstatment rights were not violated. Appeal dismissed.
- McIver, Peter & Others v. Town of Greenfield 4/17/14
- Merced, Sixto v. Human Resources Division 8/6/15