Decision  Owens, Lauren v. UMass Boston 1/22/26

Date:	01/22/2026
Organization:	Civil Service Commission
Docket Number:	C-25-158

• Appearance for Appellant: Ryan Dunn, Esq.
• Appearance for Respondent: Marsophia Ducheine, Esq.
• Hearing Officer: Shawn C. Dooley

The Commission denied the reclassification appeal of a UMass Boston employee seeking reclassification to Accountant III as she was unable to show that she performed the level-distinguishing duties of that position more than 50% of the time. Reclassification to an alternate title of Administrative Coordinator was also not justified. 

Decision

On July 8, 2025, the Appellant, Lauren Owens, acting pursuant to G.L. c. 30, § 49, filed an appeal with the Civil Service Commission (Commission), challenging the decision of the Human Resources Division (HRD) affirming the University of Massachusetts – Boston’s (UMass Boston) denial of her request for reclassification from Buyer II to Accountant III. The Commission held a remote pre-hearing conference on September 23, 2025. On November 5, 2025, I conducted an in-person full evidentiary hearing at the Commission’s offices. The hearing was recorded via Webex.^[1]  Both parties filed proposed decisions.  For the reasons set forth below, the appeal of Ms. Owen is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The parties entered 19 joint exhibits (Ex. 1-19). Based on the exhibits entered into evidence and the testimony of the following witnesses:

Called by UMass Boston:

• Ebru Korbek-Erdogmus, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Human Resources – UMass Boston

Called by the Appellant:

• Lauren Owens, Appellant
• Dr. Jason von Ehrenkrook, Department Chair & Associate Professor of Classics and Religious Studies – UMass Boston

and taking administrative notice of all matters filed in the case, pertinent law and reasonable inferences from the credible evidence, a preponderance of evidence establishes the following facts:

1. The Appellant has been employed at UMass Boston for over 31 years. (Testimony of Appellant)
2. UMass Boston appointed the Appellant in 1994 in the Procurement Department with the title of Clerk V.  In 2003, the Appellant was promoted to a Buyer II position in the Dean’s office in the College of Liberal Arts. (Testimony of Appellant; Stipulated Facts)
3. In 2004, the Appellant transferred to the Applied Linguistics Department. In 2006, she transferred to her current position in the Classics Department. In 2015, the Classics Department expanded and was renamed the Classics and Religious Studies Department (Department). She has maintained the Buyer II title for the last 21 years. (Testimony of Appellant)
4. The Appellant is responsible for all the Department’s clerical and administrative duties. The Department’s expansion increased the Appellant’s responsibilities and workload. She manages budgeting, purchasing and reimbursements, enrollment, accreditation, and coordinates with other departments. She also recruits, trains, and supervises student employees and works with faculty members.(Testimony of Appellant; Exhibit 1)
5. The Appellant is the only non-instructional, primarily administrative and clerical staff member assigned to the Department on a permanent basis. (Testimony of Appellant)
6. The Chair of the Classics and Religious Studies Department is Associate Professor Dr. Jason von Ehrenkrook. He supervises the Appellant and officially authorizes the budgeting and authorization work the Appellant completes. (Testimony of von Ehrenkrook)
7. The Appellant assists the Chair with his administrative responsibilities and has extensive knowledge and independence in this regard. (Testimony of von Ehrenkrook)
8. On March 10, 2022, the Appellant began the process of requesting that she be reclassified to a higher job title more aligned with her current position and duties. (Exhibit 1)
9. On April 18, 2022, an initial decision was sent to the Appellant that determined that she should maintain her Buyer II position. (Exhibit 2)
10. The Appellant submitted an appeal to UMass Boston’s Human Resources Department. (Testimony of Korbek-Erdogmus)
11. On April 3, 2023, the Appellant submitted a Position Audit Guide requesting that she be re-classified as an Accountant III. (Exhibit 8)
12. Ms. Korbek-Erdogmus reviewed the Appellant’s Position Audit Guide and standards provided by the Human Resources Division (HRD) regarding different titles. (Testimony of Korbek-Erdogmus)
13. Ms. Korbek-Erdogmus reviewed HRD’s Buyer Series which lists the following tasks as duties common to all Buyers:

1. Reviews requests submitted by agency personnel for the purchase of supplies and equipment in order to determine compliance with established procedures and in order to take appropriate action.

2. Obtains information concerning materials, supplies and equipment by interviewing vendors, visiting vendor facilities, attending product demonstrations, reviewing technical literature and inspecting product samples in order to determine availability, appropriateness and suitability of products, to select items to be purchased and to recommend appropriate action.

3. Provides technical assistance and advice to agency personnel, vendors, etc., in order to insure compliance with established procedures.

4. Prepares written documents outlining description of goods and services to be provided including product performance, costs, delivery date and related information in order to meet agency requests.

5. Maintains records of business organizations for the purchase of supplies, materials and equipment in order to facilitate procurement of required products.

6. Performs related duties such as preparing reports.

(Testimony of Korbek-Erdogmus; Exhibit 15)

14. Ms. Korbek-Erdogmus determined that the Buyer II classification did not align with the Appellant’s duties as listed in her Position Audit Guide. (Testimony of Korbek-Erdogmus)
15. Ms. Korbek-Erdogmus considered HRD’s Class Specification for Accountants which cite specific qualities and duties of Accountants IIIs as follows:

Incumbents of positions at this level or higher also:

1. Review accounting procedures, reports, etc. for accuracy, updating and corrections and for recommending changes or improvements in agency accounting procedures or operations.
   1. Review financial reports for trends in major programs to determine their effect on spending.
      1. Based on assignment, incumbents of positions at this level or higher may also:
         1. Review property tax rates of municipalities, checking assessor’s records as necessary in order to ensure that such rates were computed properly.
         2. Prepare and verify county budgets for legislative approval based on estimates submitted by county commissioner.
         3. Make recommendations for certification of County Treasurers’ records.
         4. Examine contract awards and agreement investment procedures, etc. for compliance with agency laws, rules and regulations.
         5. Evaluate requests for additional allotments and/or transfer of funds.

(Joint Ex. 16; Testimony of Korbek-Erdogmus)

16. Ms. Korbek-Erdogmus found partial alignments between the duties listed in the Appellant’s Position Audit Guide and the Accountant Series since the Appellant’s work involves budgeting and finance. However, Ms. Korbek-Erdogmus concluded that the Appellant does not perform the high-level decision making specified for Accountant III duties. (Testimony of Korbek-Erdogmus)
17. Among the duties identified in the specification for the Accountant Series as common to all levels of the series are:
18. Confers with agency personnel and outside agencies by telephone, in writing or in person to resolve accounting discrepancies and/or obtain statistical data and documentation for various reports and/or projects.
19. Prepares financial statements and reports and maintains accounts and records such as cash receipt registers, budgetary control, etc. to reflect financial status.
20. Reconciles financial documents, records, transactions and statements to ensure conformance with established standards.

21. Reviews agency accounting procedures to ensure conformance with established reporting requirements, etc.

    7.    Performs related duties such as maintaining salary and payroll records, preparing receipt vouchers, contracts and purchase requisitions; attending staff meetings and training sessions; responding to inquiries regarding assigned agency functions; reviewing and/or approving invoices for payment; and conferring with others concerning accounting-related matters.

(Exhibit 16)

18. The Appellant does not perform the level distinguishing duties of a

Accountant III for any significant portion of her time. (Testimony of the Appellant)

19. Ms. Korbek-Erdogmus stated that the Appellant’s duties aligned with HRD’s

Administrative Assistant Series which lists the following as duties common to all Administrative Assistant levels:

1. Monitors assigned unit activities to ensure effective operations in compliance with established standards.

2. Confers with agency staff in order to exchange information, to coordinate efforts and to obtain information concerning agency program and activities.

(Exhibit 13)

20. After reviewing the duty audit and the HRD series of titles, Ms. Korbek-Erdogmus concluded that the Appellant’s duties are more closely aligned with the Administrative Assistant title rather than with the Buyer or Accountant series. She determined that the Appellant was graded correctly but was mis-classified. Though the Appellant only supervises student staff and not faculty staff, Ms. Korbek-Erdogmus maintains that Administrative Assistant II most strongly aligns with the Appellant’s duties. (Testimony of Korbek-Erdogmus, Exhibit 10)
21. On December 4, 2024, Ms. Korbek-Erdogmus sent the Appellant a letter denying the appeal and recommended that her position be changed to an Administrative Assistant II title to align with the administrative duties listed in the position audit. (Exhibit 10)
22. Ms. Korbek-Erdogmus provided the following reasons for the decision:

• Alignment with Job Criteria

  “The duties and qualifications of your position align with the established criteria for the Administrative Assistant Series by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Human Resources Division, Class Specification. While we recognize the value of the work you perform, the duties and responsibilities listed in your position audit match the classification requirements and responsibilities of Administrative Assistant II.”

• Unchanged Responsibilities

  “The scope and responsibilities of your position remain consistent with those outlined in your current classification. Without substantial changes to the role's duties or scope, a reclassification cannot be justified at this time.”

• Not Supported by Comparative Analysis

  “A review of comparable classifications across other academic affairs and the College of Liberal Arts departments does not support the requested change.”

(Exhibit 10)

23. On January 22, 2025, the Appellant filed an appeal with the state’s Human Resources Division (HRD). (Stipulated Fact)
24. On June 12, 2025, HRD sent the Appellant notification of their decision to concur with the University’s denial for reclassification due to the fact that the duties being performed by her a majority of the time do not warrant the reclassification of her position to Accountant III. The letter included the Appellant’s rights to appeal the decision to the Civil Service Commission. (Exhibit 12)
25. On July 8, 2025, the Appellant filed a timely appeal with the Commission. (Stipulated Fact)
26. During the pre-hearing conference, it was suggested that the parties should investigate using the classification of Administrative Services Coordinator as an alternative classification in lieu of Accountant III. (Exhibit 18)
27. The Administrative Services Coordinator title is not currently in use in the UMass system. To assign this classification, UMass Boston would have to request that HRD add this title to their available classifications. (Testimony of Korbek-Erdogmus)
28. The Administrative Services Coordinator is a single level classification. Incumbents in this classification perform and coordinate a variety of administrative services for an assigned unit or agency. Administrative services can include the areas of administration, human resources, purchasing, budgeting, operations, payroll, etc. Incumbents provide technical support and exercise subject matter knowledge within these areas, prepare reports, manage records, and monitor activities and provide training to staff. (Exhibit 18)
29. The Appellant did not present to the Commission with any testimony or details related to how her time could be categorized under the distinguishing characteristics of an Administrative Services Coordinator. (Testimony of the Appellant)

LEGAL STANDARD

Section 49 of G.L. c. 30 provides in relevant part as follows:

“Any manager or employee of the commonwealth objecting to any provision of the classification affecting his office or position may appeal in writing to the personnel administrator . . . . Any manager or employee or group of employees further aggrieved after appeal to the personnel administrator may appeal to the civil service commission. Said commission shall hear all appeals as if said appeals were originally entered before it. If said commission finds that the office or position of the person appealing warrants a different position reallocation . . . it shall be effective as of the date of appeal . . . .”

To obtain a reclassification, as a general rule, an employee must establish that they are performing duties encompassed within the higher-level position the majority (i.e., at least 50% or more) of the time. See Thompson v. Division of Insurance and HRD, 29 MCSR 565 (2016) (an appellant must prove this by a preponderance of the evidence); Pellegrino v. Dep’t of State Police, 18 MCSR 261 (2005) (at least 51%); Gaffey v. Dept. of Revenue, 24 MCSR 380, 381 (2011) (more than 50%); Morawski v. Dep’t of Revenue, 14 MCSR 188 (2001) (more than 50%); Madison v. Dep’t of Public Health, 12 MCSR 49 (1999) (at least 50%); Kennedy v. Holyoke Cmty. Coll., 11 MCSR 302 (1998) (at least 50%). More specifically, the Appellant must demonstrate that the majority of the time she performs her duties, she performs activities that are “level distinguishing duties”. Duties which fall within both the higher and lower title do not count as “distinguishing duties”.

However, particularly where the assigned job title is not a good fit, the Commission is not bound to apply the classification specifications literally in every case.  Blodgett v. Massachusetts Highway Dept., 24 MCSR 588 (2011); Lefebvre v. Department of Early Education, 22 MCSR 149 (2009). When analyzing a reclassification appeal, it is within the Commission’s discretion to weigh all of the facts and to make a determination based on the evidence presented.  Past reported Commission reclassification decisions have established that the Commission is not bound to interpret the classification specifications in an overly literal fashion when adjudicating a case.  Blodgett, 24 MCSR 590 (2011); Lefebvre, 22 MCSR 149 (2009). The Commission also possesses discretion to take into account all the facts and evidence admitted when making a decision in reclassification appeals in cases where the specifications against which current job responsibilities are being measured are as outdated as the 1987 specifications at issue in this case. When accounting for outdated specifications, the Commission has previously considered major shifts in the occupation’s field in cases where the description is highly rigid to determine the reasonability of the description. These factors include the role’s adaptation of new technology and evolution or broadening of the scope of duties. Strong v. DPH, 37 MCSR 199 (2024).

ANALYSIS

Although the Appellant is a superior employee who demonstrates an exceptionally high commitment to UMass Boston and her department, she has not shown that she performs the level-distinguishing duties of an Accountant III or any other higher-level position for a majority of her working hours throughout the year. 

While the Appellant is the sole administrative employee of the Classics and Religious Studies Department and appears to operate at and have the responsibilities more commensurate with a senior level employee, the standard for reclassification is based on whether she can demonstrate that she performs the level-distinguishing duties of the requested new classification, in this case Accountant III.  The Commission has established that while a comparison with the duties of other employees in other departments may be relevant, it is insufficient to warrant reclassification if the Appellant fails to establish that they perform the duties of the requested position more than 50% of the time. Skinner v. Department of Revenue, 21 MCSR 379 (2008). The Commission has repeatedly dismissed reclassification appeals where the appellant has performed additional duties outside of their job description. E.g., Guimond v. Department of Correction, 27 MCSR 327 (2014). The Appellant’s work managing all administrative aspects of the department, including covering a significant amount of the duties of the Department chair, does not correlate to fulfilling the distinguishing duties of an Accountant III and therefore is not sufficient for reclassification.

It is noteworthy that the Appellant requested being reclassified based upon seeing a job posting that she believed to be similar in scope to her position and was advertised as having an Accountant III classification. While understandable that this would be the impetus for seeking reclassification, the standard is not merely job posting equivalency but rather fulfilling the duties incumbent upon the position as set forth in the class specifications set by HRD. Furthermore, if an individual completes duties specific to the requested title, it is not necessarily sufficient to achieve reclassification unless fulfilling these higher-level duties correspond to greater than 50% share of their overall working hours. Even though an appellant may perform more complex work than described in their current classification, that alone does not qualify them for a higher classification, even if some of this work falls under the distinguishing duties of said position. The Commission has held that if these duties are sporadic, and are not the primary focus of the individual’s responsibilities, they are insufficient to justify reclassification. Saunders v. Department of Labor Standards, 32 MCSR (2019). Throughout the hearing, I reminded Appellant’s counsel that this was the standard and that, while discussing her wide range of duties was important, he needed to correlate them to the characteristics outlined in the HRD classification specifications.

In the Appellant’s proposed decision, the focus of the argument is that a majority of her workload can be attributed to the general duties common to all levels in the Accountant series.  While some of these duties may align with the Appellant’s day-to-day responsibilities, they apply to all levels in the series, not the Accountant III title.  Accountant III has very specific distinguishing duties (in addition to the general duties in the series) that do not align with the Appellant’s job. These duties include: reviewing accounting procedures, reports, etc. for accuracy, updating and making corrections and recommending changes or improvements in agency accounting procedures or operations. Additionally, reviewing financial reports for trends in major programs to determine their effect on spending. Based on assignment, incumbents of positions at this level or higher may also:

1. Review property tax rates of municipalities, checking assessor’s records as necessary in order to ensure that such rates were computed properly.
   1. Prepare and verify county budgets for legislative approval based on estimates submitted by county commissioner.
      1. Make recommendations for certification of County Treasurers’ records.
         1. Examine contract awards and agreement investment procedures, etc. for compliance with agency laws, rules and regulations.
         2. Evaluate requests for additional allotments and/or transfer of funds.

While the Appellant stated that she must review the University’s accounting procedures to understand them so she can perform her financial-related tasks, she acknowledged that she does not review such processes for accuracy; nor does she make recommendations for changes of procedures or operations. And while she actively manages the department’s financial spending and reports, she does not analyze these reports for trends to determine their effect on spending. It was noted that the other distinguishing duties are hyper-specific and have no bearing on her current role. As such, the Appellant failed to address how her tasks aligned with the level-distinguishing duties of an Accountant III and she neglected to quantify how she performed any of these specific job duties more than 50% of the time. Therefore, there is no evidence presented that justifies the reclassification of the Appellant as an Accountant III.

In the Commission’s pre-hearing, it was suggested that the parties investigate the position of Administrative Services Coordinator as an alternative to Accountant III. While this is not a position currently used in the UMas system, HRD could add it if requested. The suggestion was made as an alternative for the Appellant’s consideration due to the high bar she must clear to gain reclassification to a highly technical classification with such specific requirements as an Accountant III, especially given that the Appellant is not an accountant. The Administrative Services Coordinator classification is much more general and is defined as someone who “perform(s) and coordinate(s) a variety of administrative services for an assigned unit or agency.”  During the evidentiary hearing, however, this option was given very little consideration in the course of presenting the Appellant’s case for re-classification. Further, she and her counsel did not attempt to quantify that her current workload aligned with HRD’s classification specifications relative to an Administrative Services Coordinator. Therefore, no evidence was presented that her current duties could be considered in a determination as to whether greater than 50% of her time could be assigned to this classification, making any further discussion of this point irrelevant.

In addition, the Appellant’s proposed decision opines as to appropriateness of the Administrative Services Coordinator title and states:  “Given it is necessary to draw a final conclusion on an appropriate title, the balance of the evidence weighs on the side of Accountant III being most appropriate.” It goes on to further clarify that “(t)he specification is clear [that] an Administrative Services Coordinator is primarily responsible for coordinating the work of clerical and manual workers, conveying information from management to their subordinates and training subordinate clerical, technical and manual personnel in their duties” and while the Appellant “train(s) and supervise(s) student workers, that is not the primary function of her position.” The proposed decision concludes its analysis with this statement:  “Given the staffing model of the Department and its overall size, there is likely not (a) need for an intermediate supervisor or working foreman such as the Administrative Services Coordinator position contemplates.” While I did consider the Administrative Services Coordinator as an alternative classification, given that the proposed decision states that this position is not aligned with her present job duties, and no attempts were made to quantify how any of the Appellant’s time could be attributed to this position, I am unable to justify a reclassification to this job title.

CONCLUSION

The Appellant has failed to meet her burden of proving that she performs the level-distinguishing duties of an Accountant III a majority of the time. Therefore, Ms. Owens’s reclassification appeal is denied.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

/s/ Shawn C. Dooley

Shawn C. Dooley

Commissioner 

By a vote of the Civil Service Commission (Bowman, Chair; Dooley, Markey, McConney, and Stein – Commissioners) on January 22, 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: 

Ryan Dunn, Esq. (for Appellant)

Marsophia Ducheine, Esq. (for Respondent) 

 

[1]  The Commission sent the parties a copy of the recording. If there is a judicial appeal of this decision, the plaintiff in the judicial appeal would be obligated to use the recording to supply the court with a written transcript of the hearing to the extent that they wish to challenge the decision as unsupported by the substantial evidence, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion.