Skip to main content

Civil Service Decisions

For best results, enter keyword(s) in the search bar above and select "in Civil Service Commission"

Displaying 31 - 40 of 183

Open PDF file, 290.89 KB,  Cook, Christopher v. Department of Children and Families 7/29/21 (PDF 290.89 KB)

Reclassification appeal denied. Appellant failed to show that he performed the level distinguishing duties of a Counsel III.

Open PDF file, 184.06 KB,  Lee, Christopher v. MassDOT 7/15/21 (PDF 184.06 KB)

Reclassification appeal denied. The Appellant was unable to show that he continuously performed the level distinguishing duties of a Civil Engineer III a majority of the time.

Open PDF file, 180.1 KB,  Naik, Bhupendra v. MassDOT 7/1/21 (PDF 180.1 KB)

Classification appeal denied. The Appellant failed to show that he performed the level distinguishing duties of a Civil Engineer V a majority of the time.

Open PDF file, 206.63 KB,  Grennell, Joanne v. Department of Developmental Services 7/1/21 (PDF 206.63 KB)

Classification appeal denied. The Appellant was unable to show that she performed the level distinguishing duties of Program Coordinator I a majority of the time.

Open PDF file, 210.69 KB,  Paglia-Hurley, Melissa v. Mass. Rehabilitation Commission 7/1/21 (PDF 210.69 KB)

Classification appeal denied. The Appellant was unable to show that she performed the level distinguishing duties of a Program Coordinator III a majority of the time.

Open PDF file, 199.99 KB,  Parks, Constance v. DHCD 6/17/21 (PDF 199.99 KB)

Classification appeal denied. The Appellant did not perform the level distinguishing duties of Program Coordinator I more than 50% of the time.

Open PDF file, 165.32 KB,  Quimby, Norma v. MassDOT 5/6/21 (PDF 165.32 KB)

Reclassification appeal denied. The Appellant was unable to show that she spent a majority of her time performing the level-distinguishing duties of a Customer Service Representative IV.

Open PDF file, 143.83 KB,  Hicks, Shana v. EOHHS 5/6/21 (PDF 143.83 KB)

Classification appeal denied. Appellant unable to show that she performed the level distinguishing duties of Administrative Assistant. Commission dismissed with future effective date for matters related to a prior reclassification request.

Open PDF file, 196.7 KB,  Thomas, Lashawnnya v. MassDOT 4/8/21 (PDF 196.7 KB)

Reclassification appeal denied. Appellant does not perform the level distinguishing duties of a Program Coordinator III a majority of the time.

Open PDF file, 224.92 KB,  Dowd and Molk v. Department of Conservation and Recreation 4/8/21 (PDF 224.92 KB)

Reclassification appeal denied. The Appellants do not perform the level distinguishing duties of Ranger III a majority of the time.

Pagination

Page  1 Page  2 Page  3 Current page  4 Page  5 Page  6 Page  7 Page  8 Page  9