The Commission dismissed the bypass appeal of a candidate for the Boston Police Department given that Boston had legitimate concerns regarding the candidate's untruthfulness and belligerence toward the police.
The Commission allowed the Appellant's appeal, concluding that he was aggrieved by an HRD decision not to restore him to an eligible list for promotion upon his reinstatement.
Under unique circumstances presented by the facts of this appeal, the Commission granted limited relief to a highly qualified candidate bypassed for appointment as a Fire Captain based on pending criminal charges for which he was acquitted a few weeks later after a much-delayed trial due to the closure of the courts.
The Commission dismissed the non-bypass equity appeal of an Amesbury police officer as his appeal was not timely filed with the Commission and because the same issues are currently pending before the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD).
As there was no error or significant factor overlooked by the Commission in affirming the decision of the Boston Police Department to bypass a candidate for appointment to police officer, the Commission denied the candidate’s motion for reconsideration.
The Commission affirmed the decision of the Boston Police Department to bypass a candidate for police officer based on his failure to disclose all information regarding workplace discipline on his application and for providing contradictory information related to his employment with a tow company.
