On March 30, 2025, the Appellant, Jason E. Hayes, a Fire Lieutenant and Acting Captain with the Taunton Fire Department (TFD), appealed to the Civil Service Commission (Commission) after the state’s Human Resources Division (HRD) denied his request to take the April 2025 Statewide Fire Captain promotional examination on the grounds he had not met the February 11, 2025 deadline to register for the examination. I held a remote pre-hearing videoconference on April 1, 2025. Pursuant to the colloquy with the parties at the pre-hearing conference, by Procedural Order dated April 2, 2025, I deemed HRD’s Pre-Hearing Memorandum to be a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal and provided the Appellant until May 2, 2025, later extended to provide the Appellant an opportunity to review his HRD online records and provide additional information about others whom he asserted to have information that other similarly situated candidates were granted waivers of the filing deadline. On July 30,2025, HRD provided a supplemental submission that addressed the alleged other candidates who had been granted waivers, and I subsequently was contacted by a TFD colleague of the Appellant with whom I had an in-camera discussion about his knowledge of other similarly situated candidates who may have received waivers of the filing deadline. After carefully considering all of the information, I conclude that the HRD properly concluded that the Appellant did not meet the filing deadline to register for the April 2025 Fire Captain promotional examination and that he did not receive disparate treatment from the others who did receive a waiver. Accordingly, HRD’s Motion For Summary Decision is granted and the Appellant’s appeal is dismissed.
UNDISPUTED FACTS
Based on the submission of the parties, the following facts are not disputed:
- The Appellant, Jason Hayes, is a permanent Fire Lieutenant with the Taunton Fire Department (TFP). At the time of this appeal he was serving as an Acting Captain in the absence of an existing list. (Appellant’s Claim of Appeal)
- In or about January 2025, the state’ Human Resources Division (HRD) posted notice for the 2025 Statewide Fire Captain examination to be administered by HRD to eligible TFD Fire Lieutenants on April 12, 2025. The deadline for registering for the examination was stated to be February 11, 2025. (HRD Pre-Hearing Memorandum, Exhs.B & D; Administrative Notice [Posters for the 2025 Fire Lieutenant & Captain Examinations])
- On or about January 13, 2025, the Appellant purchased copies of the required reading materials for the 2025 Fire Captain’s examination listed on the examination poster. (Receipt files with Appellant’s Claim of Appeal; HRD Pre-Hearing Memorandum, Exh.C)
- On Sunday, February 23, 2025, the Appellant contacted the Commission’s “CSC Help” email stating that “I signed up for the captain’s exam coming up in April. I have not seen any correspondence yet that I have signed up. I checked my Visa account to see if the $150 has been taken out yet and it has not.” (HRD Pre-Hearing Memorandum, Exh. B)
- On February 24, 2025, the Commission referred the Appellant to the HRD’s Civil Service Unit. (HRD Pre-Hearing Memorandum, Exh. B)
- By email dated February 25, 2025, the HRD Civil Service Unit notified the Appellant that HRD “does not have a record of an application in your name for the 2025 Fire Promotional exam series. At this time, our office is not accepting late applications . . . .” (HRD Pre-Hearing Memorandum, Exh. B)
- By email dated February 27, 2025, the Appellant responded to HRD and asked for “assistance in resolving this issue and allowing me to take this examination.”
- By email dated February 28, 2025, HRD responded to the Appellant, including a copy of the “screenshot” of his Government Job profile which showed that the date on which HRD had received his application for the 2025 Fire Captain examination was February 23, 2025. (HRD Pre-Hearing Memorandum, Exh. D: HRD supplemental email to Commission dated May 23, 2025)
APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD
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 . . . 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.”)
ANALYSIS
The Commission generally 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); 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 Commission repeatedly has held that consistency and equal treatment are fundamental as important hallmarks of the basic merit principles under civil service law. DiGiando v. HRD, 37 MCSR 252 (2024).
The Appellant’s appeal must be dismissed. The Appellant has not been able to prove, above the speculative level, that he duly registered for the April 2025 Fire Captain examination on or before February 11 but that the record of his registration was lost due to an unidentified glitch in the HRD online registration process and/or a processing error by his credit card company. HRD has reasonably relied on its records to conclude that the Appellant did not, in fact, register for the examination until February 23, 2025, nearly two weeks late. HRD has also established that its refusal to allow the Appellant to register late was consistent with its policy and treatment of other candidates.
I do not overlook that the Appellant spent considerable time and expense to prepare to take the 2025 examination. I do not doubt that his recent appointment as an Acting Captain suggests that he would likely have performed well on the examination. However, in order to be entitled to equitable relief from the Commission, the Appellant must show that basic merit principles or other civil service rights have been violated through no fault of his own. G.L. c. 31, § 1; St.1993, c. 310. Unfortunately, the record before the Commission falls short of passing that threshold requirement.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, HRD’s Motion to For Summary Decision is granted and the Appellant’s appeal under Docket Number B2-25-079 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 February 5, 2026.
Either party may file a motion for reconsideration within ten days of the 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:
Jason E. Hayes (Appellant)
Sheila B. Gallagher, Esq. (for Respondent)
