Discipline Appeal Decisions A-B

DOC was justified in suspending the Appellant for not notifying DOC that he employed a former inmate and his wife provided him with $5,000 bail. Disciplinary appeal dismissed.

The School Department was justified in terminating the Appellant for excessive absenteeism after prior disciplinary action failed to correct his behavior. Discipline appeal dismissed.

The Appellants were suspended for fifteen (15) days for falsifying police reports and leaving their sector without permission. Appeal dismissed.The Commission’s decision was affirmed on appeal to the Superior Court.

The Boston Police Department was justified in terminating the Appellant for violating the Department's policy regarding drug use. Discipline appeal dismissed.

The Appellant was suspended for five (5) days for violating four (4) separate rules and procedures of the Department of Correction. Appeal dismissed.

The Appellant was suspended for five (5) days for violating the Department of Corrections’ rules again. Appeal dismissed.

The Appellant had a contractual responsibility to call his employer at least fifteen (15) minutes before the start of his shift if he was going to be tardy or absent. The Appellant failed to do this twice in six (6) months, so he was suspended for three (3) days. Appeal dismissed.

2-day suspension for improperly disseminating a citizen's criminal history information.

The Appellant, who had been disciplined for similar incidents in the past, was suspended for five (days) after he made inappropriate and profane remarks to a member of the faculty. Appeal dismissed.

The Appellant's loss of privileges at a local hospital provided the Town with reasonable justification to terminate him as an EMT. Discipline appeal dismissed.

The Appellant was suspended for twenty (20) days for violating the General Policy and Rule 6(d) and Rule 19(b) of the Rules and Regulations Governing All Employees of the Massachusetts Department of Correction. Appeal dismissed.

The Appellant's vulgarity-laced outburst in the workplace justified a 3-day suspension. Appeal dismissed.

The Appellant's retirement date was effective one day prior to his suspension. Thus, the Commission has no jurisdiction to hear his appeal. Appeal dismissed.

The Appellant was suspended for ten (10) days for violating the town’s sexual harassment policy and thirty (30) days for making a racially insensitive remark to an African-American teenager. Appeal dismissed.

The Town was unable to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Appellant engaged in the ethical misconduct alleged. Further, the Town's decision was tainted by personal and political bias. Termination overturned. Appeal allowed.

By a preponderance of the evidence, DOC has shown that it had reasonable justification to suspend the Appellant for 1 day for his misconduct. Discipline appeal dismissed.

There was reasonable justification to discipline the Appellant for bringing unauthorized items into the institution. Appeal dismissed.

The State Police was unable to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Appellant committed the majority of the rule violations as alleged. Discipline modified downard.

The Appellant was terminated for using excessive force on detainees. Appeal dismissed.

The Appellant was discharged for moving two police cars, without authorization, while the officers were on a call. Appeal dismissed.

The Appellant, an EMT, was suspended for one (1) day after a patient complained about the care he received. Appeal allowed.

The Appellant was suspended for two (2) days and received a letter of reprimand in his file after he violated two (2) Departmental Rules. Appeal allowed.

The Appellant was terminated after his supervisor discovered that he had been working with a lapsed Journeyman Electrical license for the past eighteen (18) months. Appeal dismissed.

Appeal dismissed because the Appellant’s case was resolved in arbitration.

The Appellant was suspended for thirty (30) days after he violated the domestic violence policy. Appeal dismissed.

The Department was justified in disciplining the Appellant for untruthfulness, but the discipline imposed was not consistent with progressive discipline. Appeal allowed in part; 3-day suspension reduced to 1-day suspension.

Although there was sufficient evidence to justify discipline against the Appellant, a showing of disparate treatment warranted the Commission's intervention in the form of reducing the termination to a long-term suspension. Appeal allowed in part.