| Date: | 12/04/2025 |
|---|---|
| Organization: | Civil Service Commission |
| Docket Number: | G1-25-188 |
The Commission dismissed the bypass appeal of a candidate seeking appointment as a permanent reserve firefighter in the City of Lowell as he was not bypassed for appointment since all candidates appointed were ranked above him.
On August 10, 2025, the Appellant, Samuel Fardin (Appellant), filed an appeal with the Civil Service Commission (Commission), contesting the decision of the City of Lowell (City) to not select him for original appointment as a permanent reserve firefighter in the City’s Fire Department.
On September 9, 2025, I held a remote pre-hearing conference which was attended by the Appellant and counsel for the City. The City subsequently submitted a motion to dismiss the Appellant’s appeal, and the Appellant did not file an opposition.
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 to resolve an appeal 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 disposed of, however, 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 Board, 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 Dept, 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.”)
The undisputed facts establish that no candidate ranked below the Appellant on Certification No. 10393 was appointed by the City as a permanent reserve firefighter. A non-selected candidate may appeal to the Commission when his or her name appears “highe[r]” than one or more candidates who were appointed. See, e.g., Damas v. Boston Police Dep’t, 29 MCSR 550 (2016); Servello v. Department of Correction, 28 MCSR 252 (2015). See also PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION RULES, PAR.02. As no candidate ranked below him on the certification was appointed, the Appellant’s bypass appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The Appellant’s appeal under Docket Number G1-25-188 is hereby dismissed based on a lack of jurisdiction.[1]
Civil Service Commission
/s/ Christopher Bowman
Christopher C. Bowman
Chair
By vote of the Civil Service Commission (Bowman, Chair; Dooley, Markey, McConney and Stein, Commissioners) on December 4, 2025.
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:
Samuel Fardin (Appellant)
Garrett Beaulieu, Esq. (for Respondent)
[1] Separately, the Commission has ordered the City to provide the Commission with information related to the sequence of events related to public safety appointments in Lowell to ensure that civil service and other related laws are being complied with. The City is in the process of complying with those orders.
