| Date: | 02/05/2026 |
|---|---|
| Organization: | Civil Service Commission |
| Docket Number: | G1-25-035 |
The Commission affirmed the decision by the Boston Police Department to bypass a candidate for police officer due to concerns about the candidate’s judgment and conduct related to a 2016 domestic violence incident.
Consistent with the Commission’s Privacy Protocols, a pseudonym is being used for the Appellant to protect the identity of his spouse, a victim of domestic violence.
On January 31, 2025, the Appellant, L.G. (Appellant or L.G.), pursuant to G.L. c. 31, § 2(b), appealed to the Civil Service Commission (Commission) contesting the January 13, 2025 decision of the Boston Police Department (Respondent or Department) to bypass him for original appointment to the position of permanent full-time police officer.
The Commission conducted a remote pre-hearing conference on March 18, 2025. On June 4, 2025, I conducted an in-person full evidentiary hearing at the offices of the Commission, located at 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 200, Boston, Massachusetts.[1] I allowed the Department’s motion to impound R. Exhibit 7, the September 10, 2016 police incident report and R. Exhibit 8, the September 10, 2016 911 call. I also impounded pages 8-10 of R. Exhibit 2, the Privileged and Confidential Memorandum, and R. Exhibit 6, the September 10, 2016 CAD sheet.
I recorded the hearing via the Webex platform, and forwarded a link to the recording to all parties.[2] Both parties submitted proposed decisions on or around August 1, 2025, whereupon the administrative record closed.
For the reasons set forth below, the appeal is denied.
I admitted eight exhibits from the Respondent (R. Exhibits 1-8) into evidence. I also admitted the Stipulated Facts as a joint exhibit (J. Exhibit 1). Based upon the documents submitted and the testimony of the following witnesses:
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:
Appellant’s Background
Civil Service Process
The 2016 Domestic Violence Incident
Department’s Background Investigation: Initial Findings of 2016 Incident
During the Appellant’s background investigation, at the request of Det. Flynn, the Spouse provided the following written explanation of the 2016 incident:
My name is [redacted] I will like to go more in depth about the situation that happened 9/10/2016. On this day I was getting picked up from work from what was a stressful day at work. Although I was glad to see my husband [ ] after a long day I was extremely overwhelmed with work.
As we were driving home we began having a conversation about finances and bills that needed to be paid. At the time we were struggling to make ends meet and the tension was high. We began to argue with our voices getting louder as we approached the house . I myself was really upset and shocked as my husband had never raised his voice at me . In the midst of being angry at his tone I called the police. I called because I was presented with anger I've never seen before but after l called the police I realized that we both could have avoided the situation if we listened to each others concern without feeling the need to talk over one another. We learned that it's not about who can talk the loudest but it's about actually hearing each others point of view without getting angry. Since then we have been able to discuss our differences without conflict and the situation actually made us stronger in communication. Thank you for your time in reading this report.
(R. Exhibit 2)
43. The spouse also filled out a “Life Relationships Form” as part of her husband’s application, in which she denied any verbal or physical abuse from her husband. (R. Exhibit 5; Testimony of Spouse)
44. At the request of Det. Flynn, during his background investigation, the Appellant provided the following written explanation of the 2016 incident:
I [ ] is reporting about an incident that happened between me and my wife on 09/10/2016. I went to pick up [redacted] work on our way back to the house we started having a normal conversation, all of a sudden things escalated it up to a negative where we both started talking really loud in each-others face. At the time I was struggling financially really bad, I am still struggling financially, being a father with 2 kids and not being able to provide a good lifestyle to my kids, not having a great job, always behind bills because I wasn't able to make enough money, I was so angry and mad at myself for not having enough to provide for my family as we we're having this conversation things turned around, to the point we both got upset, and really loud. She end up calling the police, I walked away to calm things down, I end up going to the court where everything got dismissed. I truly regret everything that happened on the day, I wish I could go back and fixed everything.
(R. Exhibit 2)
45. The Appellant’s criminal history revealed a 2016 domestic dispute with an October 3, 2016 arraignment for the offense of assault and battery on a family/household member, G.L. c. 265, § 13M. The prosecutor dismissed the matter for want of prosecution without prejudice on January 12, 2018. (R. Exhibit 2)
46. Through a search of the Department’s databases, Det. Flynn found a copy of the police incident report documenting the 2016 domestic violence incident. (R. Exhibits 2 and 7; Testimony of Flynn)
47. Also in the database search, Det. Flynn found a 2012 police incident report for a verbal dispute between the Appellant and his wife. No criminal charges issued from that dispute. (R. Exhibit 2; Testimony of Flynn)
Department Discovery of 911 Call of the 2016 Incident
48. After his initial presentation to the roundtable and the Appellant’s bypass, Det. Flynn learned that there was a 911 call relating to the September 2016 domestic violence incident. The Appellant and his spouse were unaware of the existence of the 911 recording. (Testimony of Flynn)
The core mission of Massachusetts civil service law is to enforce “basic merit principles” for “recruiting, selecting and advancing of employees on the basis of their relative ability, knowledge and skills” and “assuring that all employees are protected against coercion for political purposes, and are protected from arbitrary and capricious actions.” G.L. c. 31, § 1; see, e.g., Massachusetts Ass’n of Minority Law Enforcement Officers v. Abban, 434 Mass. 256, 259 (2001); MacHenry v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 632, 635 (1995), rev. den., 423 Mass. 1106 (1996); see also Brookline v. Alston, 487 Mass. 278 (2021) (analyzing broad scope of the Commission’s jurisdiction to enforce basic merit principles under civil service law). The civil service system is designed to guard against political considerations, favoritism, and bias in governmental hiring and promotion.
Original appointments of civil service employees are made from a list of candidates, called a “certification”, whose names are drawn in the order in which they appear on the applicable civil service “eligible list”, using what is called the 2n+1 formula. G. L. c. 31, §§ 6 through 11, 16 through 27; Personnel Administration Rules, PAR.09. To deviate from the rank order of preferred hiring and appoint a person “other than the qualified person whose name appears highest,” an appointing authority must provide written reasons – positive, negative, or both – consistent with basic merit principles. See G.L. c. 31, § 27; PAR.08(4). This is commonly referred to as a bypass. “In addition to bypassing a candidate for appropriate negative reasons, an appointing authority may bypass a candidate for positive reasons, as when one police candidate obtains specialty training and assumes specialty responsibilities that another candidate has not.” Carnes v. Norwell, 34 MCSR 91 (2021).
The Commission’s role is to determine whether the appointing authority has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it has “reasonable justification” for the bypass after an “impartial and reasonably thorough review” of the relevant background and qualifications bearing on the candidate’s present fitness to perform the duties of the position. Boston Police Dep’t v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 483 Mass. 461, 474-78 (2019); Police Dep’t of Boston v. Kavaleski, 463 Mass. 680, 688-89 (2012); Beverly v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 182, 187 (2010); Leominster v. Stratton, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 726, 727-28 (2003). Reasonable justification means that the appointing authority’s actions were based on adequate reasons supported by credible evidence, when weighed by an unprejudiced mind, guided by common sense and by correct rules of law. Selectmen of Wakefield v. Judge of First Dist. Ct. of E. Middlesex, 262 Mass. 477, 482 (1928). See also Commissioners of Civil Serv. v. Municipal Ct. of the City of Boston, 359 Mass. 214 (1971). “The Commission’s role, while important, is relatively narrow in scope: reviewing the legitimacy and reasonableness of the appointing authority’s actions.” Beverly, 78 Mass. App. Ct. at 187 (citing Falmouth v. Civil Serv. Comm’n., 447 Mass. 814, 824-26 (2006)).
By a preponderance of the evidence, I find that the Department had reasonable justification to bypass the Appellant. The Department bypassed the Appellant for two reasons: 1) prior conduct and 2) judgment. Each ground on its own, if substantiated, is a sufficient reason for bypassing the Appellant.
Det. Flynn’s investigation was reasonably thorough and detailed, and provided the Appellant with the opportunity to provide information and explain his statements on the application. I find that the detective conducted a fair investigation.
I now examine whether the two reasons cited by the Department justified its decision.
Bypass Reason 1: Prior Conduct
HR Director Gumbs-Levarity wrote that Appellant’s prior conduct was of significant concern to the Department, and cited the September 2016 domestic violence incident:
… On September 11, 2016, Boston Police Officers responded to a radio call for a domestic violence incident between intimate partners. … The victim called 911 to report the incident and to be evaluated by EMS.
When Officers arrived, they located the visibly distraught victim with several small scratches on the right side of her face. Recounting the incident, the victim stated that [the Appellant] had picked her up late after work, which caused a verbal disagreement. The victim then alleged that during the disagreement, [he] reached across the passenger seat and began to strike and scratch her face. It was also alleged that [the Appellant] grabbed the victim by the throat.
Police Officers must behave in a manner consistent with the law they are sworn to enforce in order to gain and preserve public trust, maintain public confidence, and avoid an abuse of power by law enforcement officials. As a result, [the Appellant’s] prior conduct and poor judgment deem [the Appellant] unsuitable for employment as a Boston Police Officer. …
According to the September 2016 police incident report, the Appellant was late in picking up his wife from work, and an argument ensued regarding the car radio volume. When the Spouse tried to lower the volume, the Appellant hit her in the face, causing several small scratches below her right eye. He then attempted to grab her by the throat. The Spouse called 911, where her fearful account of the Appellant’s violent behavior, her repeated pleas to her husband to stop hitting her, and his threatening tone were recorded. It is undisputed that the Appellant and his wife were parties to a domestic violence incident on September 2016. While the Appellant’s recollection may have varied, he also testified that the incident occurred.
During his testimony, the Appellant attempted to downplay the events of September 10, 2016. It strains credulity that he could have forgotten what transpired on that night, given his claim that this was their first instance of domestic violence. The Appellant was less than candid in responding to Det. Flynn’s request for written statements about the 2016 domestic violence incident. The Appellant’s statement that the argument led to them getting “upset, and really loud” while failing to reveal that he struck and scratched his spouse and tried to grab her throat during the incident is strong and compelling evidence that he was unfit for consideration for the position of a Boston police officer.[3]
The Appellant was unaware of the 2016 911 call. When Det. Flynn located the call after the roundtable meeting and bypass decision, he found that the call contradicted the Appellant’s narrative of events.
Det. Flynn’s search of the Department databases located a domestic disturbance call from 2012 – another involvement from the Boston police in the relationship - in spite of the Appellant’s insistence that 2016 was their first domestic discord.
In certain circumstances, the Department may consider underlying behavior that does not involve law enforcement action, the court system or result in a conviction. Ramirez-Martinez v. Salem, 37 MCSR 396, 398 (2024). However, in this matter, both law enforcement and the court system were involved as a result of the September 2016 incident. The Appellant was arraigned on October 3, 2016 for assault and battery on a family/household member (G.L. c. 265, § 13M), and the matter was dismissed for want of prosecution without prejudice on January 12, 2018. Although the Appellant was not convicted, the Commission has well-established precedent that charges that did not result in conviction may still be considered by appointing authorities. Reid v. Boston Police Dep’t, 37 MCSR 188, 191 (2024).
I find that the September 2016 incident of domestic violence on its own was enough for disqualification for appointment to the position of permanent full-time police officer. See Perez-Martinez v. Brockton, 37 MCSR 13, 17 (2024).
Bypass Reason 2: Judgment
Police officers are held to a high standard given the amount of discretion and power they hold in their position. Police officers are expected to both abide by and enforce the laws. The Appellant’s actions on September 10, 2016 created a reasonable justification for the appointing authority to find that he did not meet the high standard that police officers are held to. Reid v. Boston Police Dep’t, 37 MCSR 188, 192 (2024).
HR Director Gumbs-Levarity testified to her concerns over the Appellant’s behavior, and in the more stressful situations that would inevitably arise if he were employed as a Boston police officer. She also found the domestic violence incident troubling because police officers must respond to domestic violence incidents in the line of duty, and a history of domestic violence may affect how they respond to victims.
Further, HR Director Levarity-Gumbs testified that applicants with a history of domestic violence are rarely advanced to the next stage of the Department application process. I find her testimony credible.
An appointing authority relies heavily on the information candidates provide in their applications to perform a thorough background check into whether they are qualified. It is well established that an applicant’s untruthfulness and candor may be considered as a reason for bypass. See O’Brien v. Somerville, 25 MCSR 292 (2012). In addition to the domestic violence events, the Appellant’s lack of candor and evasiveness in his testimony and in the narrative he provided to Det. Flynn is unacceptable behavior for a candidate for a position of a police officer, which requires one to gain and preserve public trust, maintain public confidence, and avoid an abuse of power by law enforcement officials.
I find the testimony and the written responses of the Appellant during the background investigation was evasive and not credible.
I find that the Appellant’s conduct through the September 2016 domestic incident demonstrated judgment inconsistent with the law that a chosen candidate would be sworn to enforce in order to gain and preserve public trust, maintain public confidence, and avoid an abuse of power by law enforcement officials.
Therefore, I find that the roundtable’s decision to bypass the Appellant based on his lack of sound judgment in this situation is reasonably justified.
The 911 Call
The Appellant objected to the Commission’s admission of the September 10, 2016 911 call, claiming that the recording is not properly before the Commission. I gave the 911 call its appropriate weight and consideration. It is undisputed that Det. Flynn completed the October 24, 2024 PCM, and that the roundtable made its decision without access to the 911 call. Even with the exclusion of the 911 call, the facts of this domestic violence incident are clearly supported by the police incident report and CAD sheet. I allowed the Department’s motion to impound both these exhibits.
The 911 call contradicts the Appellant’s testimony. However, I did not have to compare the testimony and the information imparted by Appellant (to Det. Flynn) with the transcript of the 911 call to evaluate his candor. With or without the 911 call, the facts remain undisturbed: the roundtable had sufficient information (as evidenced in the PCM and other exhibits) to support its conclusion that Appellant should be bypassed. Accordingly, I am not persuaded by the Appellant’s argument to exclude the 911 call.
Final Analysis
The appropriate inquiry is whether it is reasonable for the Boston Police Department to be concerned about the risks presented by Appellant’s appointment as a Boston police officer. HR Director Gumbs-Levarity testified that it is rare for a candidate to be advanced by the roundtable to the next stage of the application process due to a domestic violence incident.
The Commission has consistently afforded appointing authorities’ deference in evaluating candidates against the expectations and requirements of the position. The Commission’s role is to determine whether the appointing authority has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, “reasonable justification” for the bypass, following an impartial and reasonably thorough review of the candidate’s background and qualifications as they relate to the candidate’s present fitness to perform the duties of the position. The Department cannot be made to assume the risk that the hire of Appellant would entail.
I find that the Department was reasonably justified in bypassing the Appellant for all of the reasons contained in the bypass letter.
Accordingly, the Boston Police Department has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that it had reasonable justification for bypassing the Appellant for a position as a Boston police officer. The appeal filed under G1-25-035 is hereby denied.
Civil Service Commission
/s/ Angela C. McConney
Angela. C. McConney
Commissioner
By vote of the Civil Service Commission (Bowman, Chair; Dooley, Markey, McConney, and Stein, Commissioners) on February 5, 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:
James W. Gilden, Esq. (for Appellant)
Joseph McClellan, Esq. (for Respondent)
[1] 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.
[2]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.
[3] The Spouse’s written response on the “Life Relationships Form” was similarly evasive, as she denied any verbal or physical abuse from her husband.
