On January 5, 2026, the Appellant, Jonathan Hyppolite (Appellant), a police officer for the Boston Police Department (BPD), filed an appeal with the Civil Service Commission (Commission), contesting BPD’s decision not to grant him experience credit as part of a promotional examination for police sergeant for time served as an instructor at the Boston Police Academy.
On March 10, 2026, I held a remote pre-hearing conference which was attended by the Appellant, counsel for the BPD, and counsel for the state’s Human Resources Division (HRD). I subsequently issued a Procedural Order and received additional information from the parties. For the reasons discussed below, this appeal must be dismissed based on untimeliness.
Facts / Chronology of Relevant Events
- The BPD entered into a delegation agreement with the state’s Human Resources Division (HRD) to administer promotional examinations, including the sergeant promotional examination.
- The BPD contracted with a vendor by the name of Morris and McDaniel (M&M) to conduct and score the sergeant promotional examination.
- The examination consisted of various components including Education and Experience.
- The deadline for submitting the E&E component was December 28, 2024. For purposes of this appeal and viewing the record in the light most favorable to the Appellant, I treat December 28, 2024—the final date on which a candidate could submit the E&E component—as the examination date for purposes of the seven-day period prescribed by G.L. c. 31, § 22.
- Prior to taking the E&E component of the examination, applicants were provided with an “Experience & Education (E&E) Prep Guide.” (Administrative Notice from a series of appeals filed with the Commission regarding this same examination process.)
- The E&E Prep Guide states that it governs the 2024/2025 BPD Sergeant/Lieutenant/ Captain promotional process and explains that E&E is one of the three examination components. It also states that the E&E weights were developed through collaboration between subject matter experts (SMEs) and the test vendor through multiple SME panel sessions.
- The E&E Prep Guide lays out what experience can be claimed by a sergeant candidate. Unlike in prior examination cycles for police sergeants, there is no category for courses taught, Academy instruction, instructor certification or specialized training. The scoring matrix provides the actual point distributions for BPD police officer experience, and outside supervisory experience in the military or private employment.
- The Appellant's historical materials submitted establish that prior examinations awarded credit for qualifying courses taught at a police academy.
- Also, on December 21, 2024, the BPD emailed the promotional candidates an explanation of the available appeal mechanisms, stating that fair test reviews must be filed within seven days of the examination date along with instruction on how to file an appeal.
- The Appellant did not file a fair test appeal within seven days of December 28, 2024.
- On August 20, 2025, after completing the other components of the examination, the Appellant, along with all other candidates, received his score notice, obtaining a score of 85.38, including 16.47 out of a total 19.01 for E&E.
- For the first time, the Appellant filed an appeal with M&M, stating that he should receive credit for time served as an instructor at the Boston Police Academy.
- On December 17, 2025, M&M issued a denial of the Appellant’s appeal.
- On January 5, 2026, the Appellant filed the instant appeal with the Commission.
- An eligible list for BPD police sergeant was established on February 13, 2026. The Appellant is tied for 268th on that eligible list.
- While a favorable decision by the Commission has the potential of adjusting the Appellant’s score upward to impact his ranking on the eligible list, it is unlikely that any such adjustment would result in a high enough ranking to be eligible for consideration for promotion to sergeant during the life of the current eligible list.
Relevant Civil Service Law
Section 22 of Chapter 31 states in relevant part that:
Except as otherwise provided by sections sixteen and seventeen, an applicant may request the administrator to conduct one or more of the following reviews relating to an examination: (1) a review of the marking of the applicant's answers to essay and multiple choice questions; (2) a review of the marking of the applicant's training and experience; (3) a review of a finding by the administrator that the applicant did not meet the entrance requirements for the examination; provided, however, that the administrator may deny such request in the case of a competitive examination for original appointment if, at the time such request is made, the administrator is currently accepting applications for a subsequent examination of the same type for the same position.
Such request for review of the marking of the applicant's answers to essay questions, of the marking of the applicant's training and experience, or of a finding that the applicant did not meet the entrance requirements for appointment to the position shall be filed with the administrator no later than seventeen days after the date of mailing by the administrator of the notice to the applicant of his mark on the examination or his failure to meet the entrance requirements for appointment to the position.
…
An applicant may request the administrator to conduct a review of whether an examination taken by such applicant was a fair test of the applicant's fitness actually to perform the primary or dominant duties of the position for which the examination was held, provided that such request shall be filed with the administrator no later than seven days after the date of such examination.
Section 24 of Chapter 31 states in relevant part that:
An applicant may appeal to the commission from a decision of the administrator made pursuant to section twenty-three … that the examination taken by such applicant was a fair test of the applicant's fitness to actually perform the primary or dominant duties of the position for which the examination was held. Such appeal shall be filed no later than seventeen days after the date of mailing of the decision of the administrator.
The commission shall refuse to accept any petition for appeal unless the request for appeal, which was the basis for such petition, was filed in the required time and form and unless a decision on such request for review has been rendered by the administrator.
Standard for Summary Disposition
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 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 decided 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 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 Dep’t, 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 Appellant’s appeal must be dismissed as untimely because the Appellant failed to file a fair test appeal within seven days of taking the E&E component of the BPD sergeant promotional examination. The 2024 E&E Prep Guide, received by all candidates prior to taking the E&E component of the examination, contains no category for courses taught, BPD Police Academy instruction, instructor certification or specialized training. The scoring matrix makes this even clearer. For sergeant candidates, the matrix provides the actual point distributions for BPD police officer experience, outside law enforcement experience, outside supervisory law enforcement experience, and outside supervisory experience in the military or private employment. In short, there was no category to receive credit for serving as an instructor at the BPD Police Academy. The absence of such a teaching-credit category was not a matter concealed from the Appellant until he received his score. It was apparent from the E&E examination materials governing the 2024/2025 promotional process.
Then, on December 21, 2024, the BPD emailed the Appellant stating that fair test reviews must be filed within seven days of the examination, i.e. – within seven days of December 28, 2024, telling candidates what to submit for a Fair Test review.
The Appellant argues that his appeal was timely because he filed an appeal contesting his E&E component score within 17 days of receiving the examination score. Put another way, he argues that what he submitted was not a fair test appeal, but, rather, an appeal contesting his E&E score, which may be filed within 17 days of receiving his examination score.
The Appellant is incorrect. If the current E&E rules stated, for example, that Police Academy instructor credit equaled “X” points and M&M failed to give the Appellant those points despite his time serving as an instructor, that would be an individual score appeal under Section 24. However, that is not what occurred here. The current examination contained no teaching credit category whatsoever. The Appellant’s claim is that the examination should have included one because previous examinations did and because eliminating that category was arbitrary and capricious. That is a challenge to the fairness of the examination under Section 22, not to M&M’s application of the established scoring methodology to his individual credentials. Put another way, the Appellant does not identify any category in the 2024 Prep Guide under which he was entitled to one point and that M&M failed to apply it correctly. His requested relief necessarily requires adding a category that was not part of the examination. Thus, the Appellant was required to submit a fair test appeal within seven days of December 28, 2024, which he did not. See Colarusso v. Human Resources Division, B2-25-184 (2026), ruling that the part of the Appellant’s appeal related to receiving no credit for instructor experience at the Fire Academy was a fair test appeal that was not timely filed. Colarusso also notes the complications that arise when appeals of this nature are not filed until after all candidates receive their scores and eligible list rankings are established, which are precisely the reason that challenges of the fairness of any examination must be made within seven days of the examination. The facts in Colarusso are closely analogous to the Appellant’s instant appeal, which must also be dismissed based on being untimely.
Because the appeal is untimely, I need not reach the Appellant's substantive contention that elimination of the teaching-credit category was arbitrary and capricious.
Conclusion
The Appellant’s appeal docketed under CSC Case Number B2-26-016 is hereby dismissed based on untimeliness.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
/s/ Christopher Bowman
Christopher C. Bowman
Chair
By a vote of the Civil Service Commission (Bowman, Chair; Dooley, Markey, McConney and Stein, Commissioners) on September 17, 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:
Jonathan Hyppolite (Appellant)
Joseph McClellan, Esq. (for BPD)
Nicole Boudreau, Esq. (HRD)
