Decision  Webster, LaKenya v. Boston Police Department and HRD 3/19/26

Date:	03/19/2026
Organization:	Civil Service Commission
Docket Number:	B2-25-210

• Appearance for Appellant: Raquel J. Webster, Esq.
• Appearance for Respondent: Joseph McClellan, Esq. and Nicole Boudreau, Esq.
• Hearing Officer: Paul M. Stein

The Commission dismissed a “fair test” appeal as moot from a Boston Police Department (BPD) detective who took a promotional examination for sergeant as prevailing in the appeal would not change her overall oral board score or rank on the eligible list.

Decision on Respondent's Motion for Summary Decision

On September 12, 2025, the Appellant, LaKenya L. Webster, a Detective with the Boston Police Department (BPD), appealed to the Civil Service Commission (Commission), pursuant to G.L. c. 31, § 24, contesting the decision of the state’s Human Resources Division (HRD) that denied her claim that the oral board component of the March 28, 2025 BPD Sergeant Promotional Examination was not a fair test of her qualifications. The Commission added the BPD as a party and held a Pre-Hearing Conference on October 7, 2025. As ordered at the pre-hearing conference, the Appellant supplemented her Pre-Hearing Memorandum with a copy of her final examination scores and HRD supplemented its Pre-Hearing Memorandum by filing a copy of the Appellant’s Oral Board Assessors’ scores.  After review of the supplemental filings, by Procedural Order dated November 14, 2025, I directed HRD to file a Motion for Summary Decision on the limited issue of possible mootness, which HRD did on December 15, 2025, supported by an affidavit from David M. Morris, the President and CEO of Morris & McDaniel, the vendor who conducted the examination.  On January 23, 2026, the Appellant responded by email in which she stated, in part, that “I do not . . . dispute HRD’s calculation of my oral exam score . . . . I am OK with my appeal being taken under advisement.” After careful review of the information provided, HRD’s Motion for Summary Disposition is allowed and the Appellant’s appeal is dismissed.

Undisputed Facts

Based on the submissions of the parties, the following facts are not disputed:

1. The Appellant, LaKenya L. Webster, is a Detective with the Boston Police Department (BPD). (Claim of Appeal)
2. The Appellant duly registered and took the March 27, 2025 BPD Sergeant promotional examination administered by the firm of Morris & McDaniel pursuant to a Delegation Agreement between the  BPD and the state’s Human Resources Division (HRD). (HRD Pre-Hearing Memorandum, Exhs.1 & 5; Appellant’s Pre-Hearing Memorandum; BPD Motion for Summary Decision & Affidavit of David Morris)
3. The BPD Sergeant promotional examination included a Technical Knowledge (TK) written exam component weighted 32% of the total exam score, a Written Work Sample (WS) component weighted 19.2%, an Oral Assessment Center (OB) component weighted 28.8%, and an Education & Experience (E&E) component weighted 20%.  (Attachments to Appellant’s email dated October 13, 2025)
4. The Appellant’s overall score on the BPD Sergeant’s promotional examination was 88.37, which placed her in 98^th ranking on the eligible list established on February 13, 2026, tied with numerous other candidates with the same rounded score of 88. (Attachment to Appellant’s email dated October 13, 2025; BPD Motion for Summary Decision; Administrative Notice  BPD Sergeant 2026 Eligible List])
5. The Appellant received an Oral Assessment Center Score of 26.03. (Attachment to Appellant’s email dated October 13, 2025)
6. On March 28, 2025, the Appellant filed an appeal with Morris &  McDaniel  in which she claimed that the tactical situation portion of her Oral Assessment Center component was not a fair test because one of the assessors left the room during her presentation. (HRD Pre-Hearing Memorandum, Exh.2)
7. By email dated August 29, 2025, the Appellant received a decision from HRD that stated: “We have reviewed all components of your assessment and found the scoring to be fair and accurate. Your appeal is denied.” (HRD Pre-Hearing Memorandum, Exh.4)
8. This appeal to the Commission duly ensued. (Claim of Appeal; HRD Pre-Hearing Memorandum, Exh.3)
9. On November 14, 2025, BPD filed copies of the score sheets for both panels of the Appellant’s Oral Board Assessment Center (Situational Judgement and Tactical  Exercise) and  confirmed that “Assessor A” on both panels was the assessor who  purportedly left the room during the Appellant’s Tactical Exercise presentation. (BPD email dated 11/14/25 and attachments)
10. The Appellant achieved “superior” scores from all three assessors on the Tactical Exercise panel. The scores of the assessor who purportedly left the room during the second panel exercise (Assessor A) were in line with one or both of the other two assessors, save for Assessor A’s score on “Decision Making”.  (BPD email dated 11/14/25 and attachments)
11. Dr. David M. Morris, the President and CEO of Morris & McDaniel, performed a simulated normalization score for the Appellant, replacing her team score of 6.8 in Decision Making on the Tactical Exercise panel with a “perfect” team score of 7.0. With this change, the Appellant’s normalized and weighted score on the Oral Board component would change from a score of 26.03 to a score of 26.05, and her overall exam score would change from an 88.37 to an 88.39. (BPD Motion for Summary Decision, Affidavit of David Morris)
12. The increase to the Appellant’s exam score would not change her place on the BPD Sergeant’s eligible list or change her placement in the 98^th tie group. (BPD Motion for Summary Decision & Affidavit of David Morris)

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 undisputed facts, viewed in a light most favorable to the Appellant, establish that this appeal must be dismissed for mootness.  The Appellant’s placement within her current tie group on the current eligible list for BPD Police Sergeant would not change even if her score on the Tactical Exercise panel of the Oral Assessment Center component were elevated by awarding her a “perfect” 7.0 score on the one panel element for which Assessor A had given her a lower score than the other assessors on that panel. Thus,  any misstep, if it occurred, made no difference to the Appellant’s rank based on her final score on the examination. For that reason, the Appellant has no reasonable likelihood of prevailing in her appeal.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, HRD’s Motion to For Summary Disposition is granted and the Appellant’s appeal under Docket Number B2-25-210 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:

Raquel J. Webster, Esq.  (for Appellant)

Joseph A. McClellan, Esq. (for Respondent BPD)

Nicole J. Boudreau, Esq. (for Respondent H