On July 20, 2025, the Appellant, Joshua Stuart-Shor, appealed to the Civil Service Commission (Commission), pursuant to G.L. c. 31, § 24, contesting the state’s Human Resources Division (HRD) scoring of the Experience, Certification, Training & Education (ECT&E) component of his Boston Fire Department (BFD) Captain Promotional Examination. I held a remote pre-hearing conference on August 19, 2025. Pursuant to Procedural Order dated August 22, 2025, I deemed the Appellant’s Pre-Hearing Memorandum, as supplemented on September 12, 2025, September 15, 2025, and June 12, 2026, to be a Motion for Summary Decision, to which HRD filed an Opposition and Cross Motion to Dismiss on September 26, 2025. The Appellant then filed an Opposition to HRD’s Motion to Dismiss on October 14, 2025. Pursuant to Procedural Order dated March 4, 2026, HRD provided additional information requested by the Commission. After careful review of the submissions of the parties, the Appellant’s Motion for Summary Decision is allowed and HRD’s Cross Motion to Dismiss is denied.
Undisputed Facts
The Appellant submitted 11 Exhibits (App.Exhs.1–11) with his Claim of Appeal/Pre-Hearing Memorandum, as supplemented. HRD submitted 14 Exhibits (HRD Exhs.1– 14) with its Opposition and Cross Motion to Dismiss and then submitted an email dated March 30, 2026 with the additional information requested by the Commission. Based on the submissions of the parties, the following facts are not disputed:
- The Appellant, Joshua Stuart-Shor, is a tenured civil service Fire Lieutenant employed by the Boston Fire Department (BFD). (Claim of Appeal; HRD Exh.13)
- The Appellant took the BPD Fire Captain Promotional Examination administered by the Massachusetts Human Resources Division (HRD) on April 12, 2025. The examination consisted of a written Technical Knowledge (TK) component (weighted 52% of the exam), a Situational Judgement Test (SJT) component (weighted 28%) and an ECT&E component (weighted 20%). (Claim of Appeal; HRD Motion; App.Exh1; HRD Exh.7)
- The ECT&E component required the submission of a separate on-line ECT&E claim form which the Appellant duly submitted on April 19, 2025. (HRD Exhs.1 – 5)
- Q.11 on the ECT&E claim form stated in relevant part:
Education: As of April 12, 2025, if you have a related and/or unrelated conferred degree(s) from a regionally accredited college or university, choose the highest-ranked degree you have obtained. Below is a list of related degree fields. Related Degree Fields: Biochemical Science, Building Construction Engineering/ Management, Business Administration, Business Management, Chemical Engineering, Chemistry, Civil Engineering, Communications, Computer Science, Emergency Management, Executive/Organizational Leadership, Fire Administration, Fire Prevention Engineering, Fire Safety, Fire Service, Fire Science, Homeland Security/Security and Intelligence Studies, Nursing, Occupational Safety, Paramedic Medicine, Public Administration, Psychology, Social Work, Structural Engineering.
Non-Related Degree Fields: All other fields.
(HRD Exh.5) (Emphasis added)
- The Appellant answered Q.11: “Related Master’s Degree or higher Degree”. (App.Exh.5)
- The Appellant’s Q.11 claim is based on his Master’s Degree in Conflict Resolution awarded by UMass Boston in 2019. (App. Pre-Hearing Memo; App. Exhs.2 & 10; HRD Motion; App. Opposition; HRD Exh.14)
- A “Related” Master’s Degree receives 20 Education ECT&E points; an Unrelated Master’s Degree receives 11 Education ECT&E points. (HRD Exh.6)
- On June 6, 2025, HRD issued an ECT&E score notice to the Appellant which informed him that his ECT&E claim was amended as follows:
Your ECT&E claim was amended in the following way:
Q(11): Degree Claimed (Conflict Resolution) Awarded (Unrelated Master's degree) - Related degree claimed not on approved list.
Note: An amendment to an ECT&E claim is made when a candidate's answers to an ECT&E question are not accepted or they have been recalculated based on the submitted supporting documentation. The candidate's original response and the reason for a denial or a recalculation appears following the question number.
(HRD Exh.7)
- On June 6, 2025, the Appellant submitted an appeal to HRD requesting a review of HRD’s decision that his Master’s Degree in Conflict Resolution was “unrelated” to the position of a BPD Fire Captain. He asserted: “While this specific degree is not listed as a Related Fields major, I am requesting that it be added to the list of accepted majors or I be granted an exception to policy for this portion . . . .” (App.Exh.2; HRD Exh.8)
- The Appellant supported his request as follows:
- The Situational Judgement [SJT] section of the promotional exam focuses heavily on critical leadership competencies such as personnel management, conflict avoidance, and dispute resolution. These are not peripheral concerns, they are core responsibilities of any Company Officer, but especially a Captain who handles personnel management for the entire company. The inclusion of this section by both the Massachusetts Civil Service Human Resources Division and the Boston Fire Department clearly signals a strategic shift toward prioritizing promoting candidates who possess these essential interpersonal and managerial skills. It reflects a growing recognition that technical proficiency alone is not sufficient; effective leadership today requires the ability to navigate complex human dynamics and resolve conflict constructively.
- A degree in Conflict Resolution directly equips candidates with precisely these capabilities. It provides specialized education and training in managing workplace disputes, leading diverse teams, and fostering cohesive, high-functioning units. For these reasons, a Conflict Resolution degree is not just relevant—it is undeniably a related field degree for the role of Captain in the Boston Fire Department.
- Below you will find additional supporting details as to how this degree compares to other programs that the Civil Service already approves as a related field. . . . emergency management; fire administration; public administration; business administration; management.
- The academic curriculum for the above majors are drawn from Conflict Resolution programs & vice versa. The University of Massachusetts at Boston Conflict Resolution program takes these management and administration skills and develops them with the primary focus of managing workplace and organizational conflict, a critical skill in the demanding position of Fire Officer and more specifically Company Commander as a Fire Captain. My Transcript (appendix A), which is attached, demonstrates that the required courses and curriculum for this graduate degree is directly comparable to the other graduate majors accepted as a related field program.
- To illustrate how these programs are comparable and why a Conflict Resolution degree should be considered a CAT I program, I have compiled a list of comparable graduate level courses from five separate Graduate programs that offer the same or similar curriculum to my required coarse load for a Masters in Conflict Resolution. In compiling this list, I sat down with graduates from these programs who showed me their college transcripts, required course load and elective options as well as provided class descriptions or syllabi to assess if these courses were in fact comparable to the courses in my transcript (all course descriptions can be found on the university websites). Every course I took has a comparable course across these various related field graduate programs. Listed below are the comparable programs and you can see the list of comparable courses in Appendix B (attached)
i. Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School
ii. Master of Public Administration from The Harvard Kennedy School
iii. Master of Business Administration and Management from the Boston College Carroll School of management
iv. Master of Business Administration from Vanderbilt University
v. Master of Public Administration from Norwich University.
- I am also attaching the Conflict Resolution curriculum flyer (Appendix C) to illustrate the skills and core content of the program. . . [I]t directly correlates to the role of a company commander identifying and defusing conflict in the firehouse, on the fireground and in the community during high stress interactions with those citizens who call upon us to assist them.
- If Civil Service evaluates this degree as a standalone program. . . its curriculum offers essential skills for any fire officer. These are the very competencies the fire service should encourage future Fire Captains to develop . . . The ability to manage workplace conflict, conduct negotiations, facilitate mediation, and address violence, trauma, and social change is critical. These skills are not only vital within the organization but also crucial when interacting with the public we serve.
- I chose this degree specifically because it offers the most directly applicable skill set for working in the fire service and fostering collaboration across the labor-management divide.
(App.Exh.2)
- The HRD Fire Captain and Lieutenant Promotional Examination Candidate Preparation Guide sets out six “competencies” that the SJT component was designed to assess. Competency Five is entitled “Interpersonal Interactions” and states:
This competency involves the ability to establish constructive working relationships with others. This includes demonstrating consideration and respect for others’ feelings, needs, views, and contributions while maintaining the necessary balance to ensure that objectives continue to be met. This also includes the ability to foster a cooperative team environment and negotiate/reconcile conflict, among others.
(App.Exh.11)
- By email dated July 17, 2025, HRD informed the Appellant: “The Human Resources Division has reviewed the scoring of your Experience/Certifications/Training & Education "ECT&E" exam component for the Fire Promotional Series examination for 2025 Boston Fire Captain (1YP). Your ECT&E appeal has been denied.” (App.Exh.1: HRD Exh.10)
- This appeal duly ensued. (Claim of Appeal)
- In support of his Motion for Summary Decision, the Appellant provided, among other information, excerpts from “Fire Officer Principles and Practices”, one of the references used to prepare for the examination. Chapter 3 – Leading a Team (pp. 66-104) includes these passages (quoting verbatim):
- Complaints, Conflicts and Mistakes . . . . One of the key factors in decision making is how to deal with situation that involve conflicts or complaints . . . A conflict is a state of opposition between two parties. A complaint is often a manifestation of a conflict . . . [A] fire officer has to make a decision or enforce a policy that is not popular with the crew members. A citizen could be frustrated with a fire department action . . . a fire officer must deal with all of these situations in a professional manner. Dealing appropriately with problems and conflicts requires maturity, patience, determination and courage.
- Managing Conflict. One factor that distinguishes a fire officer from a fire fighter is the responsibility to act as . . . the official first-level representative of the fire department . . . This responsibility places the fire officer in a position to be the initial contact in dealing with . . . situations that involve conflict, emotions, or serious differences of opinion. Situations that involve conflicts and grievances require an additional set of skills that go beyond the general problem-solving model . . . .
- Personnel Conflicts and Grievances. The close living relationship within a fire company can produce a variety of tensions, anxieties, and interpersonal conflicts . . . in addition to the types of conflicts commonly experienced in most workplaces. One of the most difficult situations for a fire officer is an interpersonal conflict or grievance within the company or directly involving a company member. . . . The relationship of the fire officer to the conflict and the complainant makes a significant difference in the role the officer can play in resolving the conflict. Fire officers with staff assignments must also be prepared to deal with problems that involve conflict. . . .
- Conflict Resolution Model. The conflict resolution model is a basic approach that can be used in situations where interpersonal conflict is the primary problem or a complicating factor.
- FIRE OFFICER TIP. Conflict Resolution. You should anticipate some type of conflict issue. The four-step conflict resolution model provides an effective framework for managing internal and external conflicts.
(App.Exhs.3 – 8) (emphases added)
- The Appellant also provided a memorandum dated September 15, 2025 from Karen Ross, Associate Professor & Director of Graduate Programs in Conflict Resolution, Department of Conflict Resolution, Human Security & Global Governance, UMass Boston, entitled: “Relevant conflict resolution skills for first responders” and states:
Students who complete a MA in Conflict Resolution at UMass Boston receive not only a theoretical background in the conflict resolution field but also gain skills applicable to a broad range of professions. Many of these skills are especially useful for first responders, given the need in their profession to problem solve quickly as well as de-escalate highly charged emotional situations.
Courses that students in the Conflict Resolution program take include: Conflict resolution theory, Negotiation, and Research Methods as required courses. Students then choose from a range of electives that cover topics including: Conflict in workplaces, mediation, dialogue between groups in conflict, conflict resolution interventions for large groups, conflict systems for organizations, and much more.
These courses provide students with relevant skills that include . . . Situation analysis; Assessment of conflict dynamics; Skills in negotiation and mediation; De-escalation skills; Skills for addressing workplace conflict, whether immediate or ongoing; Research skills (quickly collecting information, making sense of it, applying it to the situation at hand); Ability to facilitate conversations among groups of people in conflict and help them see possible areas of mutual understanding and pathways forward; Strategic thinking/problem solving; Ability to act as an impartial observer in situations of conflict; Ability to understand issues from multiple perspectives; Creative problem-solving - considering options that can meet everyone’s needs
Given the breadth of this skill set and its applicability to first responders, leaders, and other public servants, employees of the City of Boston and more broadly the Commonwealth of Massachusetts would benefit from recognition of the Conflict Resolution MA program at UMass Boston as a ”related skills” degree.
(HRD Exh.14) (emphases added).
- In support of its Opposition and Cross Motion for Summary Decision, HRD submitted an affidavit dated September 19, 2025 from Elizabeth Belmonte, HRD’s Assistant Director of Test Development. The affidavit states, in relevant part:
The list of related degrees in the fire service is developed through job analyses carried out with the assistance of subject matter experts. Job analysis includes but is not limited to the review of surveys that are provided to individuals in the respective service fields. Surveys provide an opportunity to assess how degrees are related to the respective service and include an opportunity for participants to identify additional degrees that can be considered related to the pertinent service industry.
. . .
I reviewed the ECT&E claim submitted by Joshua Stuart-Shor (the Appellant).
On Question 11, the Appellant claimed credit for a Related Master’s degree or higher. The claim was amended to award points for an Unrelated Master’s degree, which is consistent with the ECT&E Prep guide and the Scoring Guide.
Upon appeal to HRD, the Appellant’s claim was reviewed. In June 2025, a request was sent to subject matter experts to consider whether a Master’s degree in Conflict Resolution is related to the position of fire lieutenant considering the curriculum associated with that degree.
The consulted experts concluded that a Master’s degree in Conflict Resolution is not related to the role of fire lieutenant.
Based on the response of the subject matter experts, HRD denied the Appellant’s appeal. The denial . . . explained . . . that subject matter experts had been consulted as to whether the specific degree he possesses is related to the role of lieutenant and that the subject matter experts determined the degree was not related.
(HRD Exh.8) (emphases added)
- The Appellant also asserted during this appeal that he had come to learn that HRD had allowed the request of at least one other candidate to be granted ECT&E points for a degree in Marketing as “related” to the position of BPD Captain, even though a degree in Marketing was not initially included in the ECT&E Preparation Guide or on the ECT&E Claim form as a “related” degree. I requested that HRD make inquiry as to the accuracy of the Appellant’s statement. On March 30, 2026, HRD provided an email response which stated:
HRD has verified that one candidate was awarded credit for a related degree in Marketing for the BFD Captain's Exam.
. . .[T]he candidate awarded the credit for the related degree in marketing is tied for 46th place. . . .[T]he determination as to whether the marketing degree was related or not was considered in the same manner as the Appellant's request. The candidate in question was awarded credit for the marketing degree after filing an appeal. As was done for the Appellant, as part of the appeal process, HRD requested review of the marketing degree and curriculum by Subject Matter Experts. With respect to the marketing degree, the SME's determined that the marketing degree should be considered a related degree, noting similarities to a degree in Business Administration (which is listed as a related degree). In other words, both the Appellant and the candidate with the marketing degree received consideration by SMEs as to their requests with respect to determining if a degree should be considered related or not when that degree did not appear on the list of degrees.
(HRD Email to the Commission dated 3/30/2026) (emphases added).
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.”); [FN1] 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
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 at the time designated by the administrator [HRD]”.
The Commission repeatedly has held that consistency and equal treatment are fundamental as important hallmarks of the basic merit principles under civil service law. E.g., DiGiando v. HRD, 37 MCSR 252 (2024). The Commission generally has deferred 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).
Although the Commission rarely exercises the authority to overrule, as arbitrary or unreasonable, HRD’s decisions in matters of examinations, rarely does not mean never. See, e.g., Favalora v. HRD, 38 MCSR 218 (2025), further decision, 39 MCSR xxx (2026); Ziobro v. HRD, 38 MCSR 236 (2025); Cote v. HRD, 39 MCSR 164 (2025); Rubeski v. HRD, 37 MCSR 298 (2024); Silva v. HRD, 35 MCSR 132 (2022); Callahan v. HRD, 34 MCSR 225 (2021); Naylor v. HRD, 31 MCSR 113 (2018), after full hearing, 32 MCSR 351 (2019); Clarke v. HRD, 30 MCSR 295 (2017), supplemental decision, 30 MCSR 410 (2017); K. Souza v. HRD, 29 MCSR 15 (2016); Wilbanks v. HRD, 29 MCSR 22 (2016), aff’d, CA 2016-0356 (Suffolk Sup. Ct. 2017), on further review, 30 MCSR 316 (2017); N. Souza v. HRD, 28 MCSR 624 (2015).
This appeal presents one of those rare circumstances in which the Appellant has demonstrated that, on the undisputed facts in this record, HRD’s decision to classify his Master’s Degree in Conflict Resolution as “unrelated” to the performance of the job of a BFD Fire Captain, while in the same examination scoring process creating an exception to its own scoring guidelines for a fellow candidate who had earned a marketing degree, was both arbitrary and unreasonable. The Commission concludes, however, that the effective date of this decision should be deferred for 45 days to permit HRD a further opportunity to present specific facts that establish a disputed issue for evidentiary hearing,
First, HRD’s own Candidate Preparation Guide prescribes that “Interpersonal Interactions” is one of the six “competencies” required of BFD Lieutenants and Captains, which the promotional examination was specifically designed to assess. This competency specifically includes, as one of the essential duties of a Fire Captain and Fire Lieutenant, “the ability to foster a cooperative team environment and negotiate/reconcile conflict, among others.”Similarly, the core treatise on “Fire Officer Principles and Practices” includes an extensive analysis of the importance of the ability to recognize and resolve conflicts (both inter-departmental and with the public) in anyone serving as a fire officer.
Second, the Appellant provided a thorough fact-based analysis of the close correlation between the curriculum required to obtain an advanced degree in Conflict Resolution and the comparable curriculum associated with advanced degrees in Business Administration and Public Administration, both of which are considered “related” fields by HRD.
Third, the Appellant provided a thorough fact-based explanation from the Director of the UMass Boston Director of Graduate Programs in Conflict Resolution, explaining how the Master’s Degree in Conflict Resolution teaches the skills required for effective workplace management of interpersonal and institutional conflicts, in general, and, specifically, for persons serving in a command position in a public safety occupation.
Fourth, HRD acknowledges that, omission on the initial ECT&E list of “related” degrees does not, necessarily, preclude HRD from as adding a new degree to the “related” degree category, after an appeal to HRD. HRD did so in this very examination cycle, granting another candidate points for a “Marketing” degree as “related to the job of a BFD Captain”.
Fifth, HRD relies entirely on ”mere allegations” that after review by unidentified “subject matter” experts, HRD decided that a degree in “Marketing” could be considered related because it had similarities to the related degree of Business Administration, but the Appellant’s degree in Conflict Resolution does not meet the same test. [FN2] However, HRD presented no “specific facts” to support these allegations. Nor has HRD made any “affirmative showing” which, if any, part of the Appellant’s factual submissions it reviewed that it concludes create a material dispute vis-à-vis the Appellant’s facts. In particular, HRD has not explained how its generally-stated conclusion can be reconciled with (1) the fact that the SJT component of the exam was expressly designed, perhaps by those same HRD experts, to test a candidate’s competency in conflict resolution; (2) the detailed treatment of conflict resolution in the examination study materials; and (3) the specific fact-based assertions from the Appellant and UMass Boston showing the close correlation of the curriculum for a Conflict Resolution degree with the curriculum for “related” degrees in Business Administration and Public Administration granted by five well-known universities.
In sum, on this record, the Appellant established that HRD’s decision to allow a degree in Marketing to be credited as a related degree, although it was not originally included on the list of such degrees on the ECT&E claim form, but excluding the Appellant’s Master’s Degree in Conflict Resolution from the list of academic degrees “related” to the duties of a BFD Fire Captain, both initially and, especially, after review, is arbitrary and unreasonable. However, the Commission will defer the effective date of this decision for 45 days to permit HRD the opportunity to file a motion for reconsideration that provides specific admissible evidence that raises a disputed issue for evidentiary hearing.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Appellant’s Motion for Summary Decision is granted, HRD’s Motion to Dismiss Is denied, and the Appellant’s appeal under Docket Number B2-25-168 is allowed. HRD is ordered to rescore the Appellant’s ECT&E component, allowing 20 education points for his Master’s Degree in Conflict Resolution and adjusting his overall exam score and place on the current BFD Captain’s eligible list accordingly.
This Decision will become effective 45 days from the date hereof, and HRD may have the opportunity within that timeframe to file a motion for reconsideration that shall be accompanied by an expert affidavit containing a level of “admissible evidence” commensurate with the Appellant’s submissions to establish a material issue of disputed fact. The identity of the expert may be kept anonymous, provided that the affidavit contains sufficient facts that establish that the expert has “personal knowledge” of the facts stated and is “competent to testify”. The affidavit shall address, at a minimum:
- What sources regarding job-relatedness for the marketing and conflicts resolution degrees were consulted, including the description of the “core competencies” in the SJT preparation guide and other examination study materials cited by the Appellant;
- What curricula that were provided by the Appellant were reviewed and the basis for rejecting the Appellant’s comparative analysis that his degree in conflict resolution reflects a close correlation to degrees in Public Administration, Business Administration and/ or Business Management.
- What specific facts contained in the Memorandum provided by the UMass Boston Director of Graduate Programs in Conflict Resolution does HRD dispute.
- What, if any, other reasoning was employed by the SMEs to arrive at a conclusion that a Master’s degree in Conflict Resolution is unrelated to the position of fire captain when a degree in Marketing is related.
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 August 6, 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:
Joshua Stuart-Shor (Appellant)
Nicole Boudreau, Esq. (for Respondent)
