The Commission reduced the discharge of a Chicopee police sergeant to a demotion for untruthfulness during a previous incident that had resulted in a reprimand of incompetence, as his untruthfulness had been known for over six years and two other officers who engaged in the same misconduct had not been discharged.
The Commission affirmed the discharge of a Salem Police career officer who failed to comply with the conditions of a Last Chance Agreement where he’d agreed to accept an 18-month suspension in place of a discharge.
The Commission unanimously upheld the discharge of a Lawrence police officer who abandoned a service detail, took an unauthorized leave from duty for 5-days, and threatened a superior officer while later lying to the Chief of Police about those same threats.
An employee of the Quincy Housing Authority with a record of aggressive and troublesome behavior toward supervisors was discharged after an unseemly altercation with the housing authority’s executive director. The commission found that the employee’s discharge was in accordance with progressive discipline principles.
The Commission dismissed the appeal of a Boston firefighter, who was discharged for making racist comments directed at a black colleague while he was drunk and off-duty. The Commission found that the Boston Fire Department had proven that the Appellant had not been denied a fair Section 41 hearing.
The Commission denied the appeal of a now-retired Lieutenant at Bridgewater State Hospital and upheld his 5-day suspension. The Appellant had sent an unprofessional email to his superiors warning of employee dissatisfaction with the privatization of the facility and the bidding process for replacement jobs.
The commission dismissed the appeal from a state trooper challenging a forfeiture of 10-days of accrued vacation time for insubordination. The trooper also claims he is a victim of disparately harsh discipline and argued that assignment of his case to Internal Affairs and not a local investigation was discriminatory.
The Superior Court denied the Appellants’ motion to Compel Compliance with the Order of the Civil Service Commission as they had not sufficiently established their likelihood of success on the merits of their case.
