CSC Law Clerk Jack Moses assisted with the drafting of this decision.
On November 26, 2025, the Appellant, Jeffrey DiPilato (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 Transportation (MassDOT)’s denial of his request for reclassification from Civil Engineer II (CE II) to Civil Engineer III (CE III). The Commission held a remote pre-hearing conference on January 13, 2026, where it was determined that the Appellant had failed to first file an appeal with the Human Resources Division (HRD) and so ordered the case to be dismissed with a future effective date. The Appellant then filed an appeal with HRD. HRD affirmed MassDOT’s denial of his request for reclassification on February 19, 2026. The Appellant then moved to revoke the Order of Dismissal Nisi, which was granted, and a full hearing was ordered. On May 5, 2026, I conducted an evidentiary hearing at the offices of the Commission, located at 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 200, Boston, Massachusetts. I recorded the hearing via the Webex platform. Both parties submitted proposed decisions. For the reasons set forth below, the Appellant’s appeal is denied.
Findings of Fact
The Appellant entered seven exhibits (App. Exhibits 1-7) into evidence and MassDOT also entered seven exhibits into evidence (Res. Exhibits 1-7). Based on the documents submitted and the testimony of the following witnesses:
Called by MassDOT:
• Pamela Deal, Human Resources Specialist – Classification & Compensation Unit, MassDOT
Called by the Appellant:
• Jeffrey DiPilato, Appellant
and taking administrative notice of all pleadings filed in the case, pertinent rules, statutes, regulations, case law and policies, and drawing reasonable inferences from the credible evidence, I make the following findings of fact:
1. The Appellant began working for MassDOT as a Civil Engineer II (CE II) in 2022. (Testimony of Appellant)
2. He holds the title of CE II within the Maintenance Unit of the Highway Division. (Res. Exhibit 7)
3. The Appellant functionally supervises one individual in the Maintenance Unit of the Highway Division. This employee holds the classification designation of General Construction Inspector I (GCI I). The Appellant does not complete this employee’s review in the Employee Performance Review System (EPRS), does not create or review his Form 30 (the official document that specifies the duties, responsibilities, and qualifications for a specific job title), and does not approve his overtime or his vacation time. (Res. Exhibit 7; Testimony of Appellant)
4. He routinely directs the GCI I to visit various MassDOT projects, inspect work being performed, take pictures, and forward the notes and corresponding pictures to the Appellant so that he can then upload and document the information into the system. (Testimony of Appellant)
5. Functional supervision is defined as supervision on an as-needed basis whereas direct supervision is consistent and incorporates such aspects as conducting the employee’s review in EPRS, creating and reviewing their Form 30, approval of work time (including approval of overtime), vacation, etc. (Testimony of Deal)
6. On June 10, 2025, the Appellant filed a request for reclassification from Civil Engineer II (CE II) to Civil Engineer III (CE III). (Res. Exhibit 1)
7. Amy Lynch, the Manager of MassDOT’s Classification and Compensation unit, assigned Pamela Deal, a Human Resources Specialist within the Classification and Compensation unit, to review the Appellant’s application. (Testimony of Deal)
8. For this reclassification appeal, Ms. Deal collected the Appellant’s Form 30 (the official job description), his Employee Performance Review Form (EPRS), a Manager Questionnaire, and other relevant data as well as other information the Appellant previously provided. She then invited the employee to submit additional information he would like to use to supplement this material to support his appeal. (Testimony of Deal)
9. In addition, Ms. Deal created a Job Analysis Comparison Chart to compare the duties the employee performs as documented by his Form 30 and his answers from the interview guide with the official Classification Specifications for the position. (Res. Exhibit 2; Testimony of Deal)
10. HRD’s Classification Specification for the Civil Engineer series has not been updated since 1987. (Res. Exhibit 4)
11. Per the specifications, all levels of the CE series share fifteen common duties including:
1. Prepares and/or reviews plans, designs, specifications, and cost estimates for elements of engineering projects such as the construction or maintenance of highways, bridges, or facilities.
2. Provides engineering data for the preparation and review of engineering or environmental reports and studies.
3. Performs calculations such as those related to survey traverses, traffic forecasting, soil capacity, groundwater flow, and quantity of materials by using calculators, computers and other instruments.
4. Writes memoranda, letters and technical or general reports to supervisors concerning the status of engineering projects or problems.
5. Analyzes changes in scope of work during design and/or construction of projects to recommend corrective action.
6. Conducts field investigations such as those needed to gather information needed to resolve construction, maintenance, environmental or traffic problems.
7. Recommends modifications to plans, specifications, and engineering agreements for elements of engineering projects.
8. Reviews applications for licenses or permits for the transportation of materials and for the construction of projects in order to make recommendations to supervisors for approval.
9. Approves construction and service contract payment estimates and/or invoices for materials, equipment, and supplies.
10. Inspects construction operations, such as drainage, steel placement, paving, or concrete to ensure that work is being performed according to specifications.
11. Inspects maintenance work, such as highway landscaping, repaving operations, and snow and ice removal.
12. Acts as resident engineer on projects, such as intersection reconstruction and traffic signal installation.
13. Performs engineering surveys, including the operation of transits, levels and other surveying instruments.
14. Acts as Chief of Party in performing surveys for taking detail or laying out construction projects.
15. Performs related duties, such as collecting, compiling, and correlating engineering and 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 information on such matters as department procedures and applicable standards; operating technical equipment and devices and attending meetings and conferences.
(Res. Exhibit 4)
12. The CE II position has ten level distinguishing duties set forth in the classification specification. These are:
1. Prepare and/or review plans, specifications and cost estimates for engineering projects, such as intersection upgradings, repaving projects, box culverts and single span bridges.
2. Prepare and/or review engineering or environmental reports and studies.
3. Recommend alternate methods of construction and/or substitution of materials specified to resolve problems as they occur.
4. Determine feasibility of proposed construction through on-site inspection, discussion and review of available data.
5. Conduct field investigations to determine the necessity of repair or reconstruction of roads or structures.
6. Act as resident engineer on projects such as multi-lane intersection reconstruction; traffic signal installation, including control loops and turn signals; two-lane highway construction or reconstruction in a rural setting.
7. Inspect construction operations such as simple span bridges.
8. Act as chief of a survey party in performing surveys of a high order.
9. Supervise maintenance work such as highway landscaping, repairing operations and snow and ice removal.
10. Collect and analyze traffic flow data and make speed control studies.
(Res. Exhibit 4)
13. The CE III position has eight level distinguishing duties set forth in the classification specification. These are:
1. Prepare and/or review plans, specifications and cost estimates for engineering projects such as two-lane highway projects in a rural or suburban setting or multi-span bridges of standardized design.
2. Act as resident engineer on construction projects, such as interstate or multi-lane highway projects, including earthwork, drainage, bridge construction or reconstruction, waterworks, electrical, or environmental operations.
3. Inspect construction operations such as indeterminate or curved-beam bridges.
4. Act as district or area materials engineer with local supervision of materials inspection.
5. Assist the district or area survey supervisor by assigning and checking the work of several survey parties.
6. Participate in the planning, design, and technical review of capital budget building projects.
7. Review the work performed by contractors in the construction, maintenance, or site development for small buildings or building-related projects.
8. Prepare state highway layouts, including calculations and boundary descriptions; check land court petitions, orders of taking and easements and advise the Attorney General when a court appearance is required.
(Res. Exhibit 4)
14. In addition, the CE III title is listed as the first-level supervisory job in this series. The specifications state that “[i]ncumbents of positions at this level exercise direct supervision (i.e., not through an intermediate level supervisor) over, assign work to, and review the performance of 1-5 technical personnel.” (Res. Exhibit 4)
15. After HR Specialist Deal finished analyzing the material she compiled, she drafted a recommended decision and forwarded that to Classification & Compensation Manager Amy Lynch for approval. Ms. Deal concluded from her analysis that the Appellant’s duties were commensurate with those of a CE II. (Res. Exhibit 2; Testimony of Deal)
16. On August 19, 2025, Ms. Lynch informed the Appellant that his request for reclassification was denied. (Res. Exhibit 1; Testimony of Deal)
17. The Appellant appealed this decision to HRD. On February 19, 2026, HRD upheld MassDOT’s decision to deny his reclassification appeal. (Statement of Fact)
18. The majority of the Appellant’s workload consists of reviewing reports, supervising maintenance work, recommending alternate methods of construction, and/or recommending alternate materials. (Res. Exhibit 1; Testimony of Deal)
19. The Appellant does not perform any of the CE III level-distinguishing duties except for #7 “Review the work performed by contractors in the construction, maintenance, or site development for small buildings or building-related projects.” (App. Exhibit 1; Testimony of Appellant and Deal)
20. The Appellant’s EPRS lists four primary duties that he performs:
1. Oversee maintenance work and/or construction projects as an assistant to the Resident or Area Engineer in accordance with sound practices, safety, and contractual standards.
2. Responsible for the maintenance of the Administration Building, all maintenance buildings, and all salt sheds.
3. Complete reports, documents, and estimates as required for execution of Maintenance Contract.
4. Hire artisans for the repair/renovation/maintenance of facilities.
The Appellant signed that he agreed with this evaluation without comment or amendment on August 28, 2024. (App. Exhibit 6; Testimony of Appellant)
21. The Appellant’s Form 30 details his duties and responsibilities as:
• Prepare and/or review plans, specifications and cost estimates for engineering projects, such as intersection upgradings, repaving projects, box culverts and single span bridges.
• Prepare and/or review engineering or environmental reports and studies.
• Recommend alternate methods of construction and/or substitution of materials specified to resolve problems as they occur.
• Determine feasibility of proposed construction through on-site inspection, discussion and review of available data.
• Conduct field investigations to determine the necessity of repair or reconstruction of roads or structures.
• Act as resident engineer on projects such as multi-lane intersection reconstruction; traffic signal installation, including control loops and turn signals; two-lane highway construction or reconstruction in a rural setting.
• Inspect construction operations such as simple span bridges.
• Act as chief of a survey party in performing surveys of a high order.
• Supervise maintenance work such as highway landscaping, repairing operations and snow and ice removal.
• Collect and analyze traffic flow data and make speed control studies.
The Appellant signed that he agreed with this position description (Form 30) without comment or amendment on June 18, 2025. All 10 of these duties are exactly the same as the CE II level distinguishing duties. (App. Exhibit 5)
22. The Appellant does not regularly perform seven (out of eight) of the CE III level distinguishing duties. (Testimony of Deal and Appellant)
23. The Appellant provided an invoice from Norel, an alarm services company, that lists him as the MassDOT representative for the site being inspected. The invoice totaled $1,980 for two fire alarm tests. Hours worked and other specific tasks completed as it relates to the Appellant’s review or oversight were not presented. (App. Ex. 2; Testimony of Appellant)
24. The Appellant provided a Contract Quantity Estimate for “facility and salt shed repairs at various locations” for the period ending December 20, 2025, in which he signed off attesting to the fact that the work invoiced had been performed in accordance with the contract. This amount to be paid for this estimate was $125,407. This project had a start date of January 14, 2025, with an anticipated completion date of December 9, 2026. This estimate was further approved by the Area Engineer and the ACDE. Hours worked and other specific tasks completed as it relates to the Appellant’s review or oversight of this project were not presented. (Exhibit 5; Testimony of Appellant)
Legal Standard
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 . . . .”
Generally speaking, “the bar for proving that one's position is misclassified is set very high.” Shields v. Dep’t of Revenue, 21 MCSR 263, 266 (2008). 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 are performing 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”. “Where duties are equally applicable to both the lower and higher titles, although they may be described slightly differently for each title, those types of overlapping duties are not distinguishing duties of the higher title.” Saunders v. Dep’t of Lab. Standards, 32 MSCR 413, 415 (2019).
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).
Analysis
In making my decision, I relied on all the relevant evidence submitted, including the job specifications, the Appellant’s Form 30, the interview guide completed by the Appellant, the task comparison chart created by Ms. Deal, the exhibits provided by the Appellant including his summary, and the testimony of the witnesses. While the Civil Engineer specifications are dated, they do provide ample guidance, in conjunction with other documentation, to address the particular issues raised in this appeal.
While the Appellant appears to be a talented and valuable employee to the department, the standard for reclassification depends primarily on whether he can demonstrate that he performs the level-distinguishing duties of the higher title for more than 50% of his work time. Although the Appellant showed that certain aspects of his work may correspond to the CE III classification, he did not establish that he performs those duties consistently and for a majority of his time.
MassDOT has shown that the Appellant does not perform the CE III level distinguishing duties a majority of the time and the Appellant has not shown otherwise. While there is much overlap in the specifications listed in the Civil Engineer Series, the burden lies with the Appellant in that he must prove that the tasks he is performing at the higher level, on their own, account for more than 50% of his work time.
One of the distinguishing duties of a CE III is to review the work performed by contractors in the construction, maintenance, or site development for small buildings or building-related projects. The Appellant’s appeal focused on this specific distinguishing duty and while he stated that a large percentage of his workload involves reviewing the work of contractors, the evidence does not support that fact. While he did provide a maintenance contract that he has signed off on as well as an estimate where he attested to the work being completed, the evidence does not show what specifically he did on these projects that are a CE III specific level duty as opposed to that of a CE II or a duty common to all levels within the CE series. Rather, the examples the Appellant submitted into evidence show only that the Appellant performs undefined work that could possibly be classified as CE III for an undetermined period and on these specific projects. There is very limited detail shown in these documents and the evidence does not support his position that performing inspections or any other oversight associated with these projects would encompass a majority of his work time. These examples have many aspects that significantly overlap with his current classification as well as the duties listed in his EPRS. While some of this work may be that of a CE III, he was unable to define or quantify it. The bar for reclassification that the Appellant must surpass is not merely showing that he occasionally does this work but that time performing these duties remain a consistent, on-going and dominating aspect of his job. The evidence does not show how consistently he performed this task or that it was performed a majority of his work time.
With respect to the remaining seven level-distinguishing duties, the Appellant was not able to demonstrate that he engaged in any of them, let alone that he did so over a majority of his working hours.
Further, the Appellant does not exercise formal direct supervision over any personnel, a requirement for CE IIIs. While he does functionally supervise another employee, this does not rise to the level of supervision required to meet the threshold of this specification. HRD’s specifications state that a CE III “exercises direct supervision (i.e., not through an intermediate level supervisor) over, assign work to, and review the performance of 1-5 technical personnel.” Direct supervision incorporates such aspects as conducting employee reviews in EPRS, creating and reviewing their Form 30, approval of work time (including overtime) as well as approving vacation, and may include the ability to discipline the employee. Direct supervision is ongoing and consistent as opposed to the functional supervision the Appellant exercises over one MassDOT employee (GCI I), which is less formalized and more task specific.
CONCLUSION
The Appellant failed to meet the burden of proving that he performs the specific job duties of a Civil Engineer III a majority of the time, including serving as a supervisor. Therefore, for all the reasons stated above, the appeal of Jeffrey DiPilato, filed under Docket Number C-25R-268, is hereby denied.
Civil Service Commission
/s/ Shawn C. Dooley
Shawn C. Dooley
Commissioner
By vote of the Civil Service Commission (Bowman, Chair; Dooley, Markey, McConney, and Stein, Commissioners) on July 23, 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 C.M.R. § 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:
Jeffrey DiPilato (Appellant)
Lynne-Marie Reveliotis (for Respondent)
(1) The Commission acknowledges the assistance of CSC Law Clerk Jack Moses in drafting this decision.
(2) The Standard Adjudicatory Rules of Practice and Procedure, 801 C.M.R. § 1.01 (formal rules), apply to adjudications before the Commission with Chapter 31 or any Commission rules taking precedence.
(3) The Commission forwarded a link of this recording to both parties. Should there be a judicial appeal of this decision, the plaintiff in the judicial appeal is obligated to supply the court with a transcript of this hearing to the extent that they wish to challenge the decision as unsupported by substantial evidence, arbitrary or capricious, or an abuse of discretion. In such cases, the plaintiff in the judicial appeal must transcribe the transcript from the Commission’s official recording.
(4) The Commission's consistent rule is that functional supervision, technical leadership, mentoring, coordination, or oversight of work does not satisfy a classification specification requiring bona fide supervisory responsibility unless the employee actually performs supervisory functions contemplated by the specification, such as assigning work, evaluating performance, directing subordinate employees, and exercising formal supervisory authority. E.g., Sutliff v. Executive Office of Labor & Workforce Development, 32 MCSR 27, 29 (2019); Lemoine v. Department of Children, Youth & Families, 26 MCSR 130 (2013); MacLean v. Department of Conservation & Recreation, 24 MCSR 574, 575–76
