| Date: | 04/30/2026 |
|---|---|
| Organization: | Civil Service Commission |
| Docket Number: | C-25-236 |
The Commission denied the reclassification appeal of an employee of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) seeking to be reclassified as Environmental Analyst V as he was unable to show that he performed the level-distinguishing duties of that title more than 50% of the time.
On September 30, 2025, the Appellant, Brendan Costa (Appellant), filed a timely appeal pursuant to G.L. c. 30, § 49 with the Civil Service Commission (Commission) contesting the decision of the Human Resources Division (HRD) to affirm the Department of Environment Protection (DEP)’s denial of his request for reclassification from Environmental Analyst III (EA III) to Environmental Analyst V (EA V). The Commission held a remote pre-hearing conference on November 18, 2025. On February 3, 2026, I conducted an evidentiary hearing at the offices of the Commission, located at 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, Massachusetts. I recorded the hearing via the Webex platform and forwarded a link to this recording to both parties. Both parties filed proposed decisions. For the reasons set forth below, the Appellant’s appeal is denied.
The Appellant entered 33 exhibits (App. Exhibits 1-33) into evidence and DEP entered seven exhibits into evidence (Res. Exhibits 1-7). Based on the exhibits entered into evidence and the testimony of the following witnesses:
Called by DEP:
Called by the Appellant:
and taking administrative notice of all papers filed in the case, plus pertinent rules, statutes, regulations, case law and policies and drawing from reasonable inferences from the credible evidence, I make the following findings of fact:
Incumbents of positions in this series prepare and/or review scientific reports, studies and analytical data of environmental impacts and environmental processes; perform calculations relating to environmental science problems; determine possible impacts on water, soil, air and public health; measure levels of pollution; identify sources of pollution; and perform related work as required.
The basic purpose of this work is to perform professional environmental analysis duties in such areas as air pollution, water supply and pollution, toxicology, ecology and public health and hazardous and solid waste management in order to locate, abate or control sources of environmental pollutants, all in accordance with applicable laws, rules, regulations, standards and sound environmental science principles and practices.
(Res. Ex. 3)
1. Prepares and/or reviews scientific reports, studies and analytical data on environmental impacts and processes including those associated with the construction and/or operation of facilities such as waste disposal and sewage treatment plants, incinerators, and those pertaining to air and water pollution control measures.
2. Reviews and summarizes environmental data associated with applications for permits and citing of waste disposal facilities.
3. Performs calculations such as those related to groundwater flow, pollutant dispersion, mortality, population ecology and toxicological risk by using calculators or computer models, to solve environment science problems.
4. Writes memoranda, letters and technical or general reports concerning the environment to provide information and makes recommendations regarding such matters as public and private water supplies, environmental pollution control surveys and inspections, and the status of projects.
5. Collects samples and records changes to the environment or to associated public health risks during the design and/or construction of projects which will alter the natural environment.
6. Inspects proposed locations and existing locations of water supply and/or waste water treatment operations, industrial or hazardous waste treatment facilities and sanitary landfills.
7. Conducts tests and surveys such as vegetation surveys, water quality sampling, radiological surveys and/or geological surveys.
8. Monitors environmental conditions by operating photoionization detectors, gas chromatography, explosimeters, pH meters and other analytical field equipment.
9. Performs related duties such as conduct, compiling and correlating environmental data; reading manufacturers publications and meeting with manufacturers' representatives to keep abreast of latest technical advances, new products, product prices, safety hazards, and specifications; maintaining records; providing technical advice on such matters as environmental impact and regulatory codes; and attending meetings and conferences.
(Res. Ex. 3)
Environmental Analyst II:
Incumbents of Positions at this level or higher:
1. Participate in meetings and/or conferences with agency staff, contractors and interested companies on environmental issues such as air, water, soil and wetlands impacts, public health effects; and advise interested parties on agency regulations.
2. Perform environmental analysis of the impacts of construction and other modifications of the environment on water supply and water quality of surface water, groundwater and wetlands.
3. Conduct field investigations and surveys of locations where hazardous materials are present.
4. Assist in determining compliance with applicable laws and standards and recommend enforcement actions and corrective measures.
5. Respond to emergency releases of all/or [sic] hazardous materials.
6. Inform employees and others of hazardous materials, radiation control and environmental health principles and practices, including the presence and properties of toxic chemicals in the workplace.
7. Assist in setting discharge standards and hazardous waste management standards and in drafting legislation and regulations pertaining to radiation control, environmental health and environmental management.
8. Assist in the preparation of scientific data for court testimony.
9. Assist in development and maintenance of computer programs to track environmental data.
10. Inspect consultant work tests in the field.
Environmental Analyst III:
Incumbents of Positions at this level or higher also:
1. Write the technical specifications and utilize item service cost estimates to develop the budget portion of agreements and grant applications for the assessment and redemption of hazardous waste.
2. Determine enforcement actions and corrective measures to be taken when violation of laws, rules and regulations are discovered.
3. Review and recommend data collection methods for soil, air, waste and water sampling.
4. Conduct scientific studies and prepare responses in such areas as meteorology, air pollutant dispersion, contaminant migration, hydrology, hydrogeology and marine ecology.
5. Advise legal staff on environmental matters; prepare scientific data for courtroom testimony.
6. Analyze environmental impact and public health risk assessments associated with the licensing of hazardous waste treatment, storage or transport projects.
7. Develop and maintain computer programs to track environmental data.
8. Conduct meetings and/or conferences with agency staff, contractors and interested parties on environmental issues such as air, water, soil and wetlands impacts, public health effects and investigating and resolving problems.
9. Monitor the activities of consultants in identifying and treating environmental pollutants.
10. Recommend operational strategies for dealing with compliance and enforcement in the area of public health and environmental protection.
11. Review and approve health and safety plans for environmental assessment and during remedial construction programs.
Environmental Analyst IV:
Incumbents of positions at this level or higher also:
1. Deliver expert testimony at court proceedings.
2. Determine data collection methods for soil, air, waste and water sampling.
3. Conduct risk analysis for sites/projects which have impact on or will alter the natural environment.
4. Develop methodologies and procedures for the accumulation of scientific data.
5. Recommend approval/disapproval of applications for licenses or permits for hazardous waste storage or other projects.
6. Determine project environmental impacts and relative risks to the public health, watersheds, wetlands, freshwater bodies or estuaries.
7. Develop operational strategies for dealing with compliance and enforcement in the area of hazardous waste management, toxic materials in the workplace and wetlands protection.
8. Review environmental consulting service proposals and contracts and recommend changes to technical specifications.
Environmental Analyst V:
Incumbents of positions at this level or higher also:
1. Conduct training programs in such areas as chemistry, biology, geology and toxicology.
2. Represent the department at court, before legislative bodies, boards, commissions or committees, or federal and state agencies.
3. Supervise the development of methodologies and procedures for the accumulation of scientific data.
4. Approve applications for environmental impact surveys, hazardous waste cleanup plans, water supply construction and protection projects, wetlands protection and projects utilizing state and federal funding programs for municipalities.
5. Identify and correct shortfalls in technical research and development in special areas of assigned environmental science.
6. Confer with federal, state and municipal agencies to inform, direct and coordinate activities, projects or programs.
7. Approve consultant pay estimates for the performance of services in compliance with technical standards.
8. In the absence of an employee of higher grade, order immediately correction or abatement of hazardous conditions to protect public health and safety.
9. Approve, modify or deny applications for citing and licensing of all hazardous waste storage, treatment, disposal or transportation facilities, or other projects.
(Res. Ex. 3)
Section 49 of G.L. c. 30 provides in relevant part as follows:
“Any manager or employee of the commonwealth objecting to any provision of the classification affecting his office or position may appeal in writing to the personnel administrator . . . . Any manager or employee or group of employees further aggrieved after appeal to the personnel administrator may appeal to the civil service commission. Said commission shall hear all appeals as if said appeals were originally entered before it. If said commission finds that the office or position of the person appealing warrants a different position reallocation . . . it shall be effective as of the date of appeal . . . .”
To obtain a reclassification, as a general rule, an employee must establish that they are performing duties encompassed within the higher-level position a majority (i.e., at least 50% or more) of the time. See Thompson v. Division of Insurance and HRD, 29 MCSR 565 (2016) (an appellant must prove this by a preponderance of the evidence); Pellegrino v. Dep’t of State Police, 18 MCSR 261 (2005) (at least 51%); Gaffey v. Dept. of Revenue, 24 MCSR 380, 381 (2011) (more than 50%); Morawski v. Dep’t of Revenue, 14 MCSR 188 (2001) (more than 50%); Madison v. Dep’t of Public Health, 12 MCSR 49 (1999) (at least 50%); Kennedy v. Holyoke Cmty. Coll., 11 MCSR 302 (1998) (at least 50%). More specifically, the Appellant must demonstrate that the majority of the time they perform their duties, they perform activities that are “level distinguishing duties”. Duties which fall within both the higher and lower title do not count as “distinguishing duties”.
However, particularly where the assigned job title is not a good fit, the Commission is not bound to apply the classification specifications literally in every case. Blodgett v. Massachusetts Highway Dept., 24 MCSR 588 (2011); Lefebvre v. Department of Early Education, 22 MCSR 149 (2009). When analyzing a reclassification appeal, it is within the Commission’s discretion to weigh all of the facts and to make a determination based on the evidence presented. Past reported Commission reclassification decisions have established that the Commission is not bound to interpret the classification specifications in an overly literal fashion when adjudicating a case. Blodgett, 24 MCSR 590 (2011); Lefebvre, 22 MCSR 149 (2009). The Commission also possesses discretion to take into account all the facts and evidence admitted when making a decision in reclassification appeals in cases where the specifications against which current job responsibilities are being measured are outdated. When accounting for outdated specifications, the Commission has previously considered major shifts in the occupation’s field in cases where the description is highly rigid to determine the reasonability of the description. These factors include the role’s adaptation of new technology and the evolution or material broadening of the title’s scope of duties. Strong v. DPH, 37 MCSR 199 (2024).
While there is no question that the Appellant is a valuable and hardworking employee, the standard for reclassification is tied to the determination as to whether he performs the level distinguishing duties of the job title of Environmental Analyst V more than 50% of the time. While there are certain aspects of his workload that may be construed as belonging to a higher classification, the Appellant was unable to show that he performed these tasks a majority of the time on a consistent basis; therefore, a reclassification is not justified.
The Appellant filed this reclassification appeal less than two months after being appointed and the job duties remain consistent from the job he initially applied for and was appointed to. He has not shown that the position has evolved into a significantly higher classification. While he attempts to use DEP activity/time codes that he self-reported on his timesheets as proof that he is performing level distinguishing duties of an EA V, there is no direct correlation between the HRD specifications and these codes. Further, many of these codes are often general and open to interpretation as they can be assigned to an expansive range of duties with varying degrees of complexity or seniority. It is surprising that the Appellant is seeking to be reclassified at a level above his immediate supervisor and at the same level as the section chief, especially after less than two months in the position. Given that the Appellant was a new hire at the time and had never served in this position before, there is a significant amount of on-the-job training and learning to achieve a basic level of competence in the position, let alone to take on job duties and responsibilities equivalent or greater than his supervisors.
I gave significant weight to the testimony of the witnesses called by DEP as to the specific duties that the Appellant performs and the level at which they should be classified. While the Appellant’s direct supervisor, who is an EA IV, did not testify, Ms. Reda (EA V), who supervises the Appellant as it relates to the wetlands program, and Mr. LeVangie (EA VI), who is the Chief of the Water Management Act Program overseeing the Appellant’s work related to cranberry bogs and the WMA, were able to show that he is properly classified. While both were very positive about the Appellant’s work performance, they disagreed significantly with how he interprets his job duties, as well as the overall time allocation related to these duties. They further reiterated that the Appellant does not run a “program’ as he suggests; rather, he merely is the primary analyst for a small component (cranberry growers) of many that fall under the purview of the Water Management Act Program.
While he does commendable work, in his supervisor’s opinion he overstates its significance and the authority attached to his associated actions. For example, Ms. Reda points out that if the Appellant makes a determination of enforcement actions and corrective measures when violations are discovered, his “responses are reviewed and revised, sometimes heavily revised, by staff of a higher grade before being provided to a Commissioner or other senior official.” In his current role he does not have the level of authority that he expressed in his submissions. While his role is part of the process in making determinations regarding many action items, he rarely is a sole arbiter and these decisions are predominantly reviewed, edited, and approved by a more senior person after his portion of the work is complete.
Further, the Appellant does not have any direct reports and is not responsible for supervising any employees. The classifications of Environmental Analyst IV and higher all have direct supervision as a minimum requirement. I also did not find that he provides any functional supervision over other employees within DEP. He does not supervise, evaluate, approve, or assign work and primarily collaborates with others to ensure that information is collected and compiled in accordance with regulations. I believe the Appellant is conflating the fact that some individuals are required to report information or findings to him and this requirement, which in his view somehow creates a sort of hierarchy or reporting structure. It does not.
I took into consideration the Appellant’s analysis as to how his Form 30 aligns with the distinguishing level duties of an EA V but could not come to the same conclusion that the duties he performed were at this higher level. Most of what the Appellant suggests may correspond to EA V level duties, can be more aptly associated with an EA III duty, or one that is general to the EA classification as a whole. The Appellant created this analysis on his own and attempted to use broadly categorized codes from a DEP document entitled “DEP TMS Activity Code Dictionary” to provide proof that these were EA V duties. These definitions are very broad and many could be used as an entry note for time ranging from basic data entry to senior executive decision making within the same code. Further, the Appellant’s personal narrative as to how each code aligns with an EA V distinguishing duty was never submitted as part of the timesheet entries nor was it submitted to his supervisor prior to this appeal. Finally, the Appellant has not shown that, even if one were to accept the Appellant’s interpretation that some of these self-identified duties were to fall into the EA V category, that those tasks would represent 51% of his worktime.
The Appellant failed to meet his burden of proving that he performs the specific job duties of an Environmental Analyst V a majority of the time. Therefore, the Appellant’s reclassification appeal is denied.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
/s/ Shawn C. Dooley
Shawn C. Dooley
Commissioner
By a vote of the Civil Service Commission (Bowman, Chair; Dooley, Markey, McConney, and Stein, Commissioners) on April 30, 2026.
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:
Branden Costa (Appellant)
Alexis Demirjian, Esq. (for Respondent)
Michele Heffernan, Esq. (HRD)
