| Date: | 03/19/2026 |
|---|---|
| Organization: | Civil Service Commission |
| Docket Number: | B2-25-142 |
The Commission dismissed an appeal brought by a candidate who took the 2025 Fire Captain promotional examination as he missed the deadline for filing his ECT&E application.
On June 15, 2025, the Appellant, Giuseppe Grasso (Appellant), a Fire Lieutenant with the City of Taunton’s Fire Department (TFD), appealed to the Civil Service Commission (Commission), pursuant to G.L. c. 31, § 24, after the state’s Human Resources Division (HRD) determined that he had failed to complete the Experience, Certification, Training & Education (ECT&E) component of the 2025 Statewide Fire Captain promotional examination.[1] I held a remote pre-hearing conference on this appeal on July 22, 2025. Pursuant to an oral Procedural Order at the Pre-hearing Conference, HRD’s Pre-Hearing Memorandum was deemed a Motion for Summary Decision and I deemed the Appellant’s Pre-Hearing Memorandum to serve as his Opposition and Cross Motion for Summary Decision. On July 9, 2025 and July 21, 2025, HRD submitted a Supplement to its Pre-Hearing Memorandum. The Appellant filed a Supplement to his Opposition on July 21, 2025. I held a remote hearing on the Motion for Summary Decision on October 9, 2025, which was recorded via Webex.[2] After careful review of the information provided, HRD’s Motion for Summary Decision is allowed and the Appellant’s appeal is dismissed.
HRD submitted five exhibits with its Pre-Hearing Memorandum (Resp.Exhs.1 through 5), an additional exhibit on July 9, 2025 (Resp.Exh.6 [Appellant’s 6/13/25 ECT&E application]), and two additional documents with its Supplement to the Pre-Hearing Memorandum on July 21, 2025 (Resp.Exh.7 [Appellant’s 4/18/25 Promotional Exam Review form] and Resp.Exh.8 [Affidavit of Elizabeth Belmonte]). The Appellant’s Supplemental Opposition included seven documents (App.Exhs.1 through 5 [Affidavit & Internet History], App.Exh.6 [HRD Multiple Choice Review decision] & App.Exh.7 [HRD acknowledgement of Promotional Exam Review form]). At the Motion Hearing, HRD submitted a set of sixteen exhibits (RHExhs.1 through 4, 5A & 5B, 6 through 9, 10A through 10E & 11) and I heard testimony from the Appellant and Elizabeth Belmonte, HRD’s Assistant Director of Test Development. Based on the submissions of the parties, the following facts are not disputed:
Experience/Certification/Training & Education (ECT&E): All candidates must complete the 2025 Fire Captain Promotional Examination ECT&E Claim application online. Instructions and a link to the ECT&E Claim will be emailed to candidates prior to the examination date. A confirmation email will be sent upon successful submission of an ECT&E Claim application. Submitting an ECT&E claim in any way other than through the online claim process will result in an "INCOMPLETE" score on this exam component. In addition, candidates who fail to include any supporting documentation to their ECT&E application by the deadline of April 19, 2025, will receive an "INCOMPLETE" score. All claims and supporting documentation must be received within seven calendar days following the examination. Supporting documentation must be scanned and attached to the application or emailed to civilservice@mass.gov no later than April 19, 2025. Documents can be uploaded to your Civil Service account when submitting your ECT&E application. Documents such as educational transcripts that have already been submitted and are attached to your Civil Service account do not need to be resubmitted. A new EVF must be provided for each examination.
(Resp.Exh.1) (emphasis added)
To access this exam component:
1. Click this [application link] to access the ECT&E Claim;
acknowledging receipt of the ECT&E Claim.
The claim application must be electronically submitted online THROUGH THE APPLICATION LINK ABOVE and no later than 11:59 pm, seven days after the written examination. Late applications will not be accepted. If you do not receive an automated confirmation email after you submit your claim, your ECT&E claim application has not been received by Civil Service and will not be scored. If you have not received a confirmation email, you must resubmit your online application THROUGH THE APPLICATION LINK ABOVE, prior to the submission deadline, until you have received a confirmation email. This will ensure your application is processed under the accurate Person ID number. In the event an unforeseen technological problem prevents you from successfully submitting the online claim, you must notify Civil Service at civilservice@mass.gov prior to the deadline above, requesting consideration of the claim, describing the technical issue, and attaching your completed ECT&E claim application and supporting documentation.
(Resp.Exh.2; RHExh.2; Testimony of Belmonte) (emphasis added)
Chapter 31, Section 22 of the Massachusetts General Laws (M.G.L) provides that you may request the administrator to conduct a review of the marking of your answers to multiple choice questions. If you wish to exercise this right, please forward a written request by email to civilservice@mass.gov, which includes your full name, address, Person ID, title of the examination, and location at which you took the examination. The Subject Line should be addressed to: Answer Sheet Review. Your email request must be received no later than 17 calendar days after the emailing of this notice and will be denied if the request is not filed within the required time or in the required form. If you request a review of the marking of your multiple-choice questions, a copy of your exam responses stored in HRD's computerized record system will be sent to you, so you can verify the answers that were recorded during the exam. PLEASE NOTE HRD does not provide the exam questions or the exam answer key as part of the process. Multiple choice questions or the marking of multiple-choice exams cannot be appealed to the Civil Service Commission.
The June 12, 2025 score notice did not contain any other information about appellate rights. (Resp.Exh.4; RHExh.8)
I am appealing my ECT&E score for the 2025 Fire Lieutenant exam. I received an incomplete on this component of the exam. On Governmentjobs/ applications I applied on 4/18/2025 at 8:40 AM Eastern. In addition, the application was received.
(Claim of Appeal) (emphasis added)
A motion to dispose of an appeal, in whole or in part, via summary decision may be allowed by the Commission pursuant to 801 C.M.R. 1.01(7)(h) 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 Dept, 26 MCSR 176 (2013) (“a party may move for summary decision when . . . that 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.”)
This appeal is a very close call. However, the undisputed facts, viewed in a light most favorable to the Appellant, establish that the Appellant is not without fault in failing to complete the ECT&E application in a timely manner. This appeal is somewhat unique in that, unlike other appeals the Commission has heard, the Appellant was actually able to submit the claim he should have filed in April 2025 due to the fortuitous brief reopening of the portal in June 2025. Nevertheless, the Commission must conclude that HRD’s decision to strictly enforce the timeliness requirement for filing an ECT&E claim is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable, especially when that requirement is specifically mandated by statute, as more fully explained below.
Section 22 of Chapter 31 of the General Laws prescribes that “[t]he administrator [HRD] shall determine the passing requirements of examinations.” According to the Personnel Administration Rules (PAR) 6(1)(b), “[t]he grading of the subject of training and experience as a part of a promotional examination shall be based on a schedule approved by the administrator [HRD] which shall include credits for elements of training and experience related to the position for which the examination is held.” Pursuant to Section 24 of Chapter 31, “. . . the commission shall not allow credit for training or experience unless such training or experience was fully stated in the training and experience sheet filed by the applicant atthe time designated by the administrator [HRD]”. (emphasis added)
As a general rule, the Commission defers to HRD’s expertise and discretion to establish reasonable requirements, consistent with basic merit principles, for crafting, administering, and scoring examinations. In particular, in deciding prior appeals, the Commission has concluded that, as a general rule, HRD’s insistence on compliance with its established examination requirements for claiming and scoring training and experience credits was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. See Helms v. HRD, 38 MSCR 147 (2025); Bell v. HRD, 38 MSCR 44 (2025); Donovan v. HRD, 38 MCSR 60 (2025); Weaver v. HRD, 37 MCSR 313 (2024); DiGiando v. HRD, 37 MCSR 252 (2024); Medeiros v. HRD, 37 MCSR 56 (2024); Dunn v. HRD, 37 MCSR (2024); Kiley v. HRD, 36 MCSR 442 (2024); Evans v. HRD, 35 MCSR 108 (2022); Turner v. HRD, 34 MCSR 249 (2022); Amato v. HRD, 34 MCSR 177 (2021); Wetherbee v. HRD, 34 MCSR 173 (2021); Russo v. HRD, 34 MCSR 156 (2021); Villavizar v. HRD, 34 MCSR 64 (2021); Holska v. HRD, 33 MCSR 282 (2020); Flynn v. HRD, 33 MCSR 237 (2020); Whoriskey v. HRD, 33 MCSR 158 (2020); Bucella v. HRD, 32 MCSR 226 (2019); Dupont v. HRD, 31 MCSR 184 (2018); Pavone v. HRD, 28 MCSR 611 (2015); and Carroll v. HRD, 27 MCSR 157 (2014).
The Appellant acknowledges that he received an “Incomplete” score not due to any error by HRD, but rather, due to inattention or pressure of leaving the application to a few hours before the deadline. He opened the wrong link on the online portal – submitting a Promotional Examination Review form – instead of returning to the proper link for submitting an ECT&E application form where he said he had previously started to complete the claim. I have independently ascertained that HRD appropriately alerted all candidates to the proper method for form submission and cannot fairly be held responsible for the mistake the Appellant committed here.
In sum, the fortuitous circumstances that enabled this Appellant to complete the application because the portal was reopened to allow a military make-up candidate to complete an ECT&E claim component for the same exam does not warrant an extension of the deadline for submitting an ECT&E claim.
For the reasons stated above, HRD’s Motion for Summary Decision is allowed and the Appellant’s appeal under Docket Number B2-25-142 is dismissed.
Civil Service Commission
/s/Paul M. Stein
Paul M. Stein
Commissioner
By vote of the Civil Service Commission (Bowman, Chair; Dooley, Markey, McConney and Stein, Commissioners) on March 19, 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:
Giuseppe Grasso (Appellant)
Michael J. Owens, Esq. (for Respondent)
[1] The Standard Adjudicatory Rules of Practice and Procedure, 801 C.M.R. §§ 1.01 et seq. (Formal Rules), apply to adjudications before the Commission with Chapter 31 or any Commission rules taking precedence.
[2] A link to the recording was provided to the parties. If there is a judicial appeal of a Commission decision that issues in this matter, the plaintiff in the judicial appeal would be obligated to supply the court with a transcript of any evidentiary hearing relevant to the underlying decision of the Civil Service Commission to the extent that he/she wishes to challenge the decision as unsupported by substantial evidence, arbitrary or capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
