Decision  Alves, John and 6 Others v. Boston Police Department & HRD 4/30/26

Date:	04/30/2026
Organization:	Civil Service Commission

Hearing Officer: Paul M. Stein

The Commission dismissed the appeals of seven promotional examination applicants who were contesting the methodology used by the test vendor to score the E&E component of the examinations as they failed to first file a timely appeal with the Boston Police Department (BPD) or the state’s Human Resources Division (HRD). 

Decision on Respondent's Motion to Dismiss

Between August 27, 2025 and January 27, 2026, the Massachusetts Civil Service Commission (Commission) received a total of 33 appeals (collectively referred to as the Standardization and Normalization [S&N] appeals), including the seven captioned appeals, from members of the Boston Police Department (BPD), each of which challenged the methodology used to score the E&E component of the December 2024 promotional examinations for BPD sergeant and BPD lieutenant administered by the test vendor retained by the BPD under a Delegation Agreement with the state’s Human Resources Division. 

On January 10, 2026, the Commission held a concurrent pre-hearing conference which was attended by counsel for the BPD, counsel for HRD, counsel for the 29 appellants represented by counsel and all four pro se appellants. Pursuant to Procedural Order dated January 16, 2026, as amended on February 27, 2026, the BPD filed a motion to dismiss the seven captioned appeals on the grounds that these appellants had failed to file a timely request for administrative review by the BPD test vendor and/or HRD prior to appealing to the Commission, which is a jurisdictional prerequisite under civil service law for the Commission to be able to hear the appeals. The BPD’s motion also sought to dismiss all 33 appeals for failure to state claim on which relief could be granted. The represented appellants, through counsel, and the four pro se appellants, opposed the BPD’s motion as to its failure to state a claim defense, asserting that bona fide issues existed as to whether the “standardization and normalization” of E&E scores was arbitrary or unreasonable and that discovery was necessary on those issues. As neither counsel for the four captioned represented appellants nor any of the three captioned pro se appellants responded to the jurisdictional issue raised by the BPD, these appellants were afforded an additional opportunity to submit evidence demonstrating that they had requested a prior administrative review as required by civil service law. No such information was filed.

Undisputed Facts

1. The BPD entered into a delegation agreement with HRD to administer promotional examinations, including for sergeant and lieutenant.
2. The BPD contracted with a vendor by the name of Morris and McDaniel (M&M) to conduct and score the examination. 
3. One portion of the examinations consisted of an experience and education (E&E) component. 
4. In or about August 2025, all seven of the Appellants received their E&E examination scores and notification of their appeal rights accompanied the Appellants’ score notices.
5. Prior to filing their appeals with the Commission, neither Appellant Green,  Litterio nor Ramos filed a request for review of their E&E scores with the BPD, the testing vendor, or HRD.  
6. Prior to filing their appeals with the Commission, while Appellants Alves, J. Lopes, Pritchard, and Walsh did file a request for review of their E&E scores with the BPD, the testing vendor, and/ or HRD, none of those appellants sought a review of the use of the S&N methodology to score their E&E component.  

Relevant Civil Service Law

Section 22 of Chapter 31 prescribes the procedures and deadlines for administrative review by HRD of ECT&E (training & experience) claims:

. . . [A]n applicant may request the administrator [HRD] to conduct one or more of the following reviews relating to an examination . . . (2) a review of the marking of the applicant's training and experience . . . 

Such request for review . . . of the marking of the applicant's training and experience . . .  shall be filed with the administrator no later than seventeen days after the date of mailing by the administrator of the notice to the applicant of his mark on the examination . . . .

An applicant may request the administrator to conduct a review of whether an examination taken by such applicant was a fair test of the applicant's fitness actually to perform the primary or dominant duties of the position for which the examination was held, provided that such request shall be filed with the administrator no later than seven days after the date of such examination.

G.L. c. 31, §22, ¶2-¶4 (emphasis added).

Section 24 of Chapter 31 states in relevant part that:

The commission shall refuse to accept any petition for appeal unless the request for appeal, which was the basis for such petition, was filed in the required time and form and unless a decision on such request for review has been rendered by the administrator. 

G.L. c. 31, §24 (emphasis added).

Standard for Summary Disposition 

The Commission may, on motion or upon its own initiative, dismiss an appeal at any time for lack of jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 801 CMR 1.01(7)(g)(3).  A motion before the Commission, in whole or in part, via summary decision may be filed pursuant to 801 C.M.R. 1.01(7)(h).  An appeal may be decided on summary disposition only when, “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party”, the undisputed material facts affirmatively demonstrate that the non-moving party has “no reasonable expectation” of prevailing on at least one “essential element of the case”. See, e.g., Milliken & Co. v. Duro Textiles LLC, 451 Mass. 547, 550 n.6 (2008); Maimonides School v. Coles, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 240, 249 (2008); Lydon v. Massachusetts Parole Bd., 18 MCSR 216 (2005). See also Mangino v. HRD, 27 MCSR 34 (2014) and cases cited (“The notion underlying the summary decision process in administrative proceedings parallels the civil practice under Mass. R. Civ. P. 56, namely, when no genuine issues of material fact exist, the agency is not required to conduct a meaningless hearing.”); Morehouse v. Weymouth Fire Dep’t, 26 MCSR 176 (2013) (“a party may move for summary decision when . . . there is no genuine issue of fact relating to his or her claim or defense and the party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law”).

Analysis 

None of the Appellants complied with Section 22 of Chapter 31, which requires the filing of a request for administrative review with the BPD, the testing vendor or HRD that specifically sought a review of the S&N methodology of scoring the E&E component of the examination. A timely request for administrative review which challenges the alleged flaws in the S&N methodology for scoring the E&E component, and a decision on that issue by the BPD or its designee (if denied) is required to form the basis for appeal to the Commission on that issue under Section 24 of Chapter 31.  Compliance with these statutory mandates are  prerequisites to the Commission’s jurisdiction hear an appeal on the S&N issue.  In other words, the Commission lacks the authority to hear an appeal on an issue that was not first brought before the BPD or its delegate for prior review and administrative decision.  These requirements cannot be deemed merely ministerial acts and the Commission cannot presume the outcome of such an administrative review.  See Lincoln v. Personnel Adm’r, 432 Mass. 208 (2000); Stavely v. City of Lowell, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 400 (2008). See also Kelley v. City of Boston, C.A. 12-571-H (Suffolk Sup. Ct. 2013).  Accordingly, as a matter of law, the Commission lacks jurisdiction to hear these seven captioned appeals.  

Conclusion

As the Commission lacks jurisdiction to hear these seven captioned appeals [Docket Nos. B2-26-001 (Alves); B2-26-040 (Green); B2-26-026 (Litterio); B2-26-024 (J. Lopes); B2-26-020 (Pritchard); B2-25-294 (Ramos); B2-25-297 (Walsh)], they are hereby dismissed. 

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

/s/ Paul M. Stein

Paul M. Stein

Commissioner

By a vote of the Civil Service Commission (Bowman, Chair; Dooley, Markey, McConney and Stein, Commissioners) on April 30, 2026, the Commission dismissed the Appellants’ appeals. 

Either party may file a motion for reconsideration within ten days of receipt of this Commission order or decision. Under the pertinent provisions of the Code of Mass. Regulations, 801 CMR 1.01(7)(l), the motion must identify a clerical or mechanical error in this order or decision or a significant factor the Agency or the Presiding Officer may have overlooked in deciding the case.  A motion for reconsideration does not toll the statutorily prescribed thirty-day time limit for seeking judicial review of this Commission order or decision.

Under the provisions of G.L. c. 31, § 44, any party aggrieved by this Commission order or decision may initiate proceedings for judicial review under G.L. c. 30A, § 14 in the superior court within thirty (30) days after receipt of this order or decision. Commencement of such proceeding shall not, unless specifically ordered by the court, operate as a stay of this Commission order or decision. After initiating proceedings for judicial review in Superior Court, the plaintiff, or his / her attorney, is required to serve a copy of the summons and complaint upon the Boston office of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth, with a copy to the Civil Service Commission, in the time and in the manner prescribed by Mass. R. Civ. P. 4(d)

Notice to:
James W. Gilden, Esq. (for Appellant Pritchard) 
Scott Green (Appellant)
Nicholas Litterio (Appellant)
Semus Walsh (Appellant)
Kay H. Hodge, Esq. (for BPD
John M. Simon, Esq., (for BPD)
Joseph A. McCllellan, Esq. (for BPD)
Michael J. Owens, Esq. (HRD)

1. The Commission also received approximately two dozen other appeals from members of the BPD who challenged other aspects of the scoring of the BPD Sergeant and BPD Lieutenant examinations. Those have been separately docketed and are proceeding independently of the S&N Appeals involved here.