Civil Service Commission Decisions 2017- Present

Reclassification appeals dismissed; Appellants are actually seeking a reallocation of grade or title for which the Commission does not have jurisdiction.

Reclassification appeal allowed. Appellant has shown that she performs the level distinguishing duties of an Administrative Assistant I a majority of the time.

Reclassification appeals denied. The Appellants, all Review Examiner IIs, were not able to show that they performed the level distinguishing duties of a Counsel II a majority of the time.

Reclassification appeal denied. The Appellant, a Program Coordinator I, was unable to show that he performed the level distinguishing duties of a Program Coordinator II a majority of the time.

Appellant does not perform the duties of General Construction Inspector II a majority of the time. Duties performed during voluntary overtime do not count toward calculation.

Reclassification appeal denied. The Appellant was unable to show that he performed the level distinguishing duties of a Program Coordinator III a majority of the time.

Reclassification appeal denied. The Appellant was unable to show that she performed the level distinguishing duties of a Personnel Analyst III a majority of the time.

Reclassification appeal denied. The Appellant was unable to show that she performed the level distinguishing duties of a Program Coordinator II a majority of the time.

Reclassification appeal denied. Appellant failed to show that he performed the level distinguishing duties of a Counsel III.

Reclassification appeal denied. The Appellant was unable to show that she performed the level distinguishing duties of a Child Support Enforcement Specialist II a majority of the time.

Reclassification appeal denied. The Appellant was unable to show that he performed the level distinguishing duties of a Environmental Analyst IV a majority of the time.

Reclassification appeal denied. The Appellants do not perform the level distinguishing duties of Ranger III a majority of the time.

The Commission denied the Appellant's appeal as he was unable to show that he performs the duties of a Civil Engineer VI a majority of the time.

Reclassification appeal denied. The Appellant was unable to show that she performed the level distinguishing duties of a Counsel II a majority of the time.

The Commission denied the Appellant’s request for reclassification as she failed to show that she performed the level distinguishing duties of a Program Coordinator I a majority of her time.

Reclassification appeal dismissed. Commission lacks jurisdiction to hear reclassification appeals that are not first filed with HRD.

The Civil Service Commission denied the Appellant’s appeal to be reclassified from Recreation Therapist III to Program Coordinator III, as she failed to show that she performed the level distinguishing duties of a PC III a majority of the time.

The Commission denied the Appellant's reclassification appeal as she was unable to show that she formed the level distinguishing duties of Tax Examiner III more than 50% of the time.

Superior Court affirmed Commission's decision denying the Appellant's reclassification appeal to Forest and Park Supervisor III.

Reclassification appeal denied. The Appellant was unable to show that he performed the level distinguishing duties of Forest and Park Supervisor III a majority of the time.

Classification appeal denied. The Appellant was unable to show that she performed the level distinguishing duties of Program Coordinator I a majority of the time.

Reclassification appeal dismissed. Commission lacks jurisdiction to hear reclassification appeals that are not first filed with HRD.

Reclassification appeal denied. The Appellant was unable to show that she performed the level distinguishing duties of an Auditor IV a majority of the time.

Reclassification appeal denied. Appellant was unable to show that he performs the level distinguishing duties of an RN V a majority of the time.

Classification appeal denied. Appellant unable to show that she performed the level distinguishing duties of Administrative Assistant. Commission dismissed with future effective date for matters related to a prior reclassification request.

Reclassification appeal from GCI I to GCI II denied. Appellant could not show he a majority of his time performing duties of higher classification.

Reclassification appeal allowed. In the unique position that she occupies at PRHC, the majority of her duties are most properly described to be more consistent with the responsibilities of an RN-III (the title that her predecessor held) than an RN-II.

Reclassification appeal denied. The Appellant was unable to show that he continuously performed the level distinguishing duties of a Civil Engineer III a majority of the time.

Reclassification appeal denied. Appellant unable to show that she performed the level distinguishing duties of a Program Coordinator I a majority of the time.

The Commission denied the Appellant's reclassification appeal as he was unable to show that he performed the level distinguishing duties of a Construction Coordinator a majority of the time.

The Civil Service Commission denied the Appellant’s appeal to be reclassified from Engineering Aide II to General Construction Inspector I as he failed to show that he performed the level distinguishing duties of the higher classification a majority of the time. Rather, he is a properly classified EA-II who has histori

The Commission denied the Appellant's reclassification appeal as he was unable to show that he performed the level-distinguishing duties of the title of District Maintenance Engineer more than 50% of the time.

Classification appeal denied. The Appellant failed to show that he performed the level distinguishing duties of a Civil Engineer V a majority of the time.

Classification appeal denied. The Appellant was unable to show that she performed the level distinguishing duties of a Program Coordinator III a majority of the time.

Classification appeal denied. The Appellant did not perform the level distinguishing duties of Program Coordinator I more than 50% of the time.

Reclassification appeal; GCI I to GCI II; appeal denied; Appellant did not meet minimum entrance requirements and did not perform duties of higher classification a majority of the time.

The Civil Service Commission denied the Appellant’s appeal to be reclassified from Program Coordinator II to Program Coordinator III as she failed to show that she performed the level distinguishing duties of the higher classification a majority of the time.

Reclassification appeal denied. The Appellant was unable to show that she spent a majority of her time performing the level-distinguishing duties of a Customer Service Representative IV.

Since there is no dispute that the Appellant does not currently perform those CSR III duties a majority of her time, or that she has received out-of-grade pay retroactive to the date of her reclassification appeal being filed with MassDOT, the Commission is not empowered to grant further relief.

Reclassification appeal denied. Appellant unable to show that she performed the level distinguishing duties of a Program Coordinator II a majority of the time.

Reclassification appeal denied. Appellant does not perform the level distinguishing duties of a Program Coordinator III a majority of the time.

The Commission upheld the decision of the State Police to discipline the Appellant for misconduct related to failing to work 6 hours of claimed overtime, but modified the discipline based on different findings and disparate treatment.

The Superior Court affirmed the Commission's decision to uphold DOC's decision to terminate him as a Correction Officer.

The commission affirmed the discharge of a Cedar Junction Correction Officer following an OUI arrest and two domestic violence incidents occurring in the same year. The Commission referred to the discipline of 70 DOC employees for domestic violence since 2003, with many being discharged after just one incident.

SJC affirmed Commission decision overturning termination of firefighter.

The discharge of a Brookline firefighter was reversed by the commission, which found this course unjust. Among other missteps, the commission found Brookline overlooked retaliatory acts made by the firefighter’s colleagues. The commission ordered reinstatement and payment of any lost compensation as the remedy.

A firefighter employed by Brookline appealed a discharge that was a result of a refusal to participate in Brookline’s plan that would have helped him return to duty. The commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the firefighter did not comply with several conditions that were required for his return to duty.

A Cambridge firefighter was fired after their arrest for domestic assault and battery. The firefighter had been put on administrative leave; however, Cambridge did not extend the firefighter’s probationary period. Nevertheless, the commission dismissed the firefighter’s discharge appeal due to lack of jurisdiction.

The Civil Service Commission upheld the termination of a municipal police officer, finding that he engaged in conduct violative of the rules of the Police Department when he fled the scene of a motor vehicle accident and was later arrested.

The Civil Service Commission upheld the 30-day suspension of the Appellant, finding that substantial credible evidence supported the conclusion that the Appellant had engaged in conduct which constituted impermissible child abuse, violative of LPD rules and regulations

The Commission upheld two, eight-tour suspensions of a Boston firefighter for multiple instances of insubordinate and unbecoming behavior toward his peers and superiors, but overturned, due to mitigating circumstances, a third eight-tour suspension for two alleged instances of being AWOL.

The Commission dismissed the appeal of a five-day suspension from a West Springfield Police Captain, on the grounds that the appeal did not include the filing fee and was late when it was mailed to HRD, not to the Commission.

The commission reversed a three-day suspension imposed on the Head Clerk of the BFD after she forwarded a fire report including details of a drug overdose to a property manager. The commission reasoned that the Appellant did not violate state ethics laws, and these fire reports are routinely provided to the public.

The Civil Service Commission dismissed, with a future effective date, the appeal of a State Trooper contesting his termination due to his failure to comply with the requirement to receive COVID vaccination. He may re-open his appeal after a final decision on a parallel appeal filed with MCAD.

Appeal of 2-day suspension denied. There was just cause to discipline the firefighter for his insubordination at the scene of a fire.

An employee of the Quincy Housing Authority with a record of aggressive and troublesome behavior toward supervisors was discharged after an unseemly altercation with the housing authority’s executive director. The commission found that the employee’s discharge was in accordance with progressive discipline principles.

The Superior Court issued a further decision clarifying what payments are due to Appellants for back pay, interest, etc.

SJC Decision related to amount of back pay due to reinstated police officers

A Methuen Public Schools maintenance worker appealed his discharge. Because the record was clear that he had been charged and convicted after assaulting his spouse, violating a restraining order, and on drug charges, the commission summarily dismissed his appeal on these incontestable facts.

The Commission dismissed the appeal of a Boston police officer who was discharged following an off-duty incident in which the officer's department-issued firearm was stolen after it was not properly secured and he gave a civilian access to his vehicle. The Commission was not convinced by the police officer’s argument.

Superior Court affirmed Commission's decision to dismiss Appellant's appeal. Commission lack jurisdiction to hear disciplinary appeal by police officer still in probationary period.

The commission found no issue in the City of Pittsfield’s termination of a Water and Sewer employee after he took an unauthorized leave when he had already exhausted all of his accrued leave and was denied additional time off. The employee also neglected to maintain various licenses required by law for his position.

The Commission upheld the six-month suspension and demotion of a Fire Captain to Firefighter, finding that the Appellant’s persistent pattern of attendance issues, culminating in an unjustified refusal to return to work, even on limited duty, justified the discipline imposed.

 The commission removed a 5-day suspension placed on a Weymouth police lieutenant who was accused of neglect of duty after ordering dispatchers to inform officers “off air” about a warrant for someone involved in a call for service. The Commission found that the lieutenant’s orders were not a misuse of his discretion.

Discipline appeal denied. There was just cause for DOC to suspend the Appellant for 2 days regarding misconduct related to the treatment of an inmate. Bypass appeal dismissed as a tie is not a bypass.

An East Longmeadow police officer was discharged for allegedly lying about an altercation in response to an incident at a local business. The commission reversed the discharge finding that the police officer had not been untruthful, had no disciplinary history, and video evidence of the incident was not incriminating.

Two suspensions upheld. DOC had just cause to suspend the Appellant for failing to stay alert while assigned to eye-ball watch of a prisoner.

Superior Court affirmed Commission's decision to uphold the Town's decision to terminate police officer for misconduct.

The Commission affirmed the discharge of a police lieutenant employed by the town of Holden after finding evidence of sexual harassment and that he viewed pornographic content on a police department issued cell phone while on duty, among other incidents.

The Commission found that the Dracut Deputy Police Chief did not violate public records laws or Departmental procedures for the release of internal affairs documents relating to discipline. The Commission referred to the Appellant's reputable past performance as they reduced a 10-day suspension to a written reprimand.

Since the Appellant has also filed a discrimination complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, the Civil Service Commission is dismissing this appeal until MCAD has issued a final decision on the Appellant’s complaint.

The Commission dismissed the appeal of a Massachusetts State Trooper who resigned his position after he was suspended for refusing to comply with the vaccination mandate of Executive Order 595 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and as untimely.

The Appellant's resignation was not coerced, but rather a voluntary resignation, divesting the Commission of jurisdiction of this disciplinary appeal.

Discipline; 2-day suspension; Fire Lieutenant; appeal dismissed; untimely appeal.

Discipline appeal denied. The Appellant misrepresented his age when he took a civil service examination for firefighter. The Town was justified to terminate his employment upon discovery of this misconduct. Parties given addition time to discuss an alternative resolution.

Discipline appeal denied. The Town had just cause to demote the Fire Chief for failing to prevent his son from being appointed as a firefighter when he knew or should have known that his son was not old enough to sit for the civil service examination.

Appellant's motion for reconsideration denied. Commission's decision to affirm demotion and 30-day suspension stands.

Superior Court affirmed Commission's decision to reinstate police officer after the Town failed to prove the most serious charges against the Appellant.

A Leominster police officer's discharge was reduced to a 60-day suspension. The Commission reasoned that implicit bias affected Leominster’s treatment of his case. Additionally, the Commission found it concerning that Leominster came to a baseless conclusion that the police officer almost assaulted his superior.

Discipline appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction based on Appellant's failure to go forward with a local appointing authority hearing prior to filing an appeal with the Commission.

Appeals Court upheld Commission's decision to overturn termination of housing authority employee.

Termination of Housing Authority employee. Commission allowed appeal. Superior Court affirmed Commission decision.

The Superior Court issued a decision ordering the immediate reinstatement of the Appellant and ordered a status conference to decide the issue of the amount of past wages due to the Appellant.

An employee at the Medford Housing Authority (MHA) had her termination overturned after the Commission found that the city of Medford could not demonstrate that the Appellant’s whistleblower activities had caused the resignation of two other MHA employees or otherwise constituted misconduct.

Termination of police officer; appeal denied. By a 4-1 vote, the Commission found that the Appellant's off-duty misconduct related to domestic abuse provided the City with just cause to terminate his employment as a police officer, particularly in consideration of a recent last chance agreement.

Superior Court affirmed Commission's decision upholding termination of police officer.

Discipline appeal denied. The Boston Fire Department had just cause to impose a 30-day suspension against the Appellant for his misconduct and the level of discipline imposed was consistent with progressive discipline.

The commission affirmed the suspension of a Boston firefighter for two tours after he engaged an avoidable confrontation with a contractor while working a detail and later told an overdramatized story about the situation. He also failed to follow standard operating procedures after the situation as required by BFD.

The 60-day suspension of a Boston firefighter was affirmed after the Commission found he abused his authority for personal gain as he parked his personal vehicle at a construction site and made an erroneous accusation of a welding foreman being drunk while working.

The Commission dismissed the appeal of a Registered Nurse who was terminated by the Department of Developmental Services as it concluded that it does not have the jurisdiction to hear her appeal.

Since the Appellant has also filed a discrimination complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, the Civil Service Commission is dismissing this appeal until MCAD has issued a final decision on the Appellant’s complaint.

The Commission affirmed the discharge of a Somerville police officer who used an anti-gay slur while he assaulted a citizen on the street who was not threatening him, and later lied about why he engaged in this assault. The Commission found the Appellant’s behavior constituted conduct unbecoming of a police officer.

SJC ruled that Commission does not have jurisdiction over State Police appeal related to the forfeiture of vacation time.

Appeals court affirmed Commission decision to dismiss Appellant's appeal. Commission lacks jurisdiction to hear disciplinary appeal of provisionally promoted employee who is demoted to his permanent civil service position.

The Commission dismissed the appeal of an interim Northampton water treatment plant operator who was demoted to his tenured position as laborer had his appeal dismissed by the Commission as he failed to file within ten days of Northampton notifying him of his demotion.

The Commission held that the DOC’s discipline of a Correction Officer stood in contrast to other cases of employees abusing leave time. In particular, the DOC had been more lenient with an employee who used sick leave to go to a golf tournament. The Commission modified the Appellant’s discharge to a 15-day suspension.

Considering the Commission’s previous decision that altered the Department of Correction’s discipline of the Appellant, the Commission decided to refrain from elaborating how the relief it granted correlated to subsidiary matters addressed only in the relevant collective bargaining agreement.

The Commission overturned the 30-day suspension of a Rockland Fire Lieutenant. The Commission concluded that the Fire Lieutenant was a victim of cronyism and nepotism, and the town’s Fire Chief fabricated charges in retaliation for the Appellant pursuing an investigation into the residency of a Rockland Fire Captain.

Discipline; termination of Fire Lieutenant; appeal allowed in part; discipline modified to demotion / suspension.

The Appeals Court affirmed the Commission's decision to apply a mail-handling rule regarding an appeal received via mail with no postmark.

Superior Court affirmed Commission's decision to modify termination to a demotion.

The Commission rejected a Springfield police officer’s appeal after finding that the police officer was not a tenured employee, given that he had been discharged within his probationary period.

The Commission dismissed the Appellant's appeal as it lacked jurisdiction to hear a disciplinary appeal of a firefighter in his probationary period.

The Commission upheld a firefighter’s thirty-day suspension for failing to comply with two orders to attend medical examinations and two orders to meet with the Deputy Chief to explain the absences.

The Commission accepted the Recommended Decision of the DALA Magistrate and affirmed the City's decision to terminate the Appellant as a firefighter based on his chronic absenteeism, tardiness and poor performance.

Discipline appeal denied. The Lowell Housing Authority has shown that the Appellant engaged in insubordination and that his long history of prior discipline justified his termination.

A State Police Officer who had a history of sleeping on the job had his 270-day suspension affirmed by the Commission after it found that he had been inattentive to duty during service of two details and smelled of alcohol during one of them. He was not intoxicated at the time of being tested, however.

The Commission affirmed the suspension of fire alarm operator with the Boston Fire Department for one-tour after finding he was responsible for a lapse in judgement that caused a delay in responding to a fire emergency in a 12-story residential building in down-town Boston.

The Commission reduced the suspension of a New Bedford school custodian from 5-days to 3-days, after he failed to follow a newly amended sick-day notification policy on two different occasions where the school failed to give him a reasonable notice in advance about the new policy when the first violation was committed.

The Commission affirmed a 5-day suspension of a Westford police officer who engaged in a physical altercation with a fellow officer. The incident occurred because of the Appellant spreading false information about the other officer taking a personal day on a holiday which forced another officer to cover for him.

Since the Appellant has also filed a discrimination complaint with MCAD, the Civil Service Commission is dismissing this appeal until MCAD has issued a final decision on the Appellant’s complaint.

The commission dismissed the appeal from a state trooper challenging a forfeiture of 10-days of accrued vacation time for insubordination. The trooper also claims he is a victim of disparately harsh discipline and argued that assignment of his case to Internal Affairs and not a local investigation was discriminatory.

Discipline appeals dismissed. The Commission lacks jurisdiction over State Police discipline appeals that have not gone before a Trial Board.

Appeals Court affirmed a Superior Court judgment upholding a decision of the Civil Service Commission related to the discipline of a Chicopee Police Sergeant.

Superior Court upheld Commission's decision to modify termination to demotion of police sergeant.

The Commission affirmed the discharge of a North Attleborough police officer who physically assaulted his girlfriend, and an off-duty Plainville police officer who was kissing her. As the girlfriend refused to testify, the Commission and NAPD made a factual determination that the Appellant's was guilty of the claims.

An Agawam police sergeant’s demotion was affirmed by the Commission after he neglected to intervene in an incident where excessive force was utilized against a prisoner and failed to ensure the prisoner was provided medical attention.

The Commission unanimously upheld the discharge of a Lawrence police officer who abandoned a service detail, took an unauthorized leave from duty for 5-days, and threatened a superior officer while later lying to the Chief of Police about those same threats.

The Superior Court upheld the Commission's decision to dismiss the Appellant's appeal based on lack of jurisdiction as he was still in his probationary period at the time of his termination.

Discipline appeal dismissed. The Commission lacks jurisdiction to hear a disciplinary appeal form a probationary employee.

Appellant's disciplinary appeal allowed in part; Termination modified to demotion with no eligibility for promotion for five years. Majority of Commission found that the Appellant's behavior constituted misconduct warranting discipline, but the more serious charge of domestic abuse was not proven by a preponderance of

The Commission upheld the City of Boston's decision to terminate the Appellant based on his failure to comply with the City's zero-tolerance policy regarding workplace violence.

Discipline; 5-day suspension; police officer; appeal allowed.

The Commission dismissed the appeal of the Appellant regarding a 5 and 10-day suspension for failure to comply with the vaccination mandate in place at the time as the Appellant failed to file a timely appeal with the Commission.

The Commission dismissed the appeal of a suspension from a New Bedford cemetery clerk who was disciplined for incompetence as she failed to request a hearing before the local Appointing Authority which is a precondition to the Commission’s jurisdiction as per Section 41.

Discipline appeal dismissed. The Commission lacks jurisdiction over disciplinary matters in the State Police that have not gone before a Trial Board.

The Superior Court affirmed the Commission's decision to modify the Appellant's discipline from a 30-day suspension to a 10-day suspension.

The City had just cause to suspend the Appellant for misconduct, including referring to her supervisor in obscene terms, but the level of discipline imposed was not justified. Suspension modified from 30 days to 10 days.

The Commission voided the 4-day tour of duty suspension handed down to a Caucasian Charlestown firefighter after he made racially insensitive remarks. The Commission found the firefighter was singled out for discipline where a superior lieutenant and other firefighters also contributed a hostile working environment.

The Commission concluded it did not have jurisdiction of a State Police trooper’s appeal of a forfeiture of five days of accrued time off where the trooper was able to use accrued time that he originally had panned on forfeiting through the “use it or lose it” policy in order to satisfy the imposed penalty.

The Commission reduced the Appellant’s four-tour suspension to an official reprimand, as many of the charges against the Appellant were either unsupported by a preponderance of the evidence or overblown.

The 1-day suspension of a Springfield police captain was affirmed by the Commission, finding he had posted offensive comments online targeted at public citizens in the context of a political discussion. The captain’s offensive language interfered with his duty as a police officer to treat all citizens with respect.

The Commission dismissed the appeal of a Boston firefighter, who was discharged for making racist comments directed at a black colleague while he was drunk and off-duty. The Commission found that the Boston Fire Department had proven that the Appellant had not been denied a fair Section 41 hearing.

The Commission affirmed the discharge of a North Attleborough firefighter, after he committed multiple acts of domestic violence against two women. Although one of the acts took place following the firefighters discharge, it was considered when affirming the disciplinary action from North Attleborough.

Superior Court affirmed Commission's decision to uphold the Town's termination of a police officer, including the Commission's determination that the a last chance agreement was not signed by the Appellant under duress.

The Commission adopted in full the remand decision of an administrative magistrate finding from the Superior Court, that a Middleborough police officer was in fact not singled out for disparately harsh treatment when discharged, as he had been alone in receiving discipline from the list of comparators he provided.

Superior Court Affirmed Commission's decision upholding the Town's decision to terminate the Appellant from the position of Police Lieutenant.

Commission upheld Town's decision to terminate Police Lieutenant for misconduct regarding reporting of time, etc.

Appeals Court affirmed Superior Court judgment upholding the decision of the Civil Service Commission. The Commission had upheld the Town's decision to terminate a police lieutenant for multiple instances of misconduct.

Discipline; termination; firefighter.

The Commission affirmed the 10-day suspension of a New Bedford school-lunch delivery driver after finding that his attendance record was egregiously poor for the past five years. This is the second rejected appeal by the Commission submitted in the previous 18-months by the Appellant for absenteeism.

Discipline appeal denied. Town had just cause to terminate a police officer for on-duty and off-duty misconduct.

Superior Court affirmed CSC decision. CSC's decision regarding when probationary period begins was not an error of law.

The Commission dismissed the appeal of a discharged Stoughton police officer because of a lack of jurisdiction.

Since the Appellant has also filed a discrimination complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, the Civil Service Commission is dismissing this appeal until MCAD has issued a final decision on the Appellant’s complaint.

Since the Appellant has also filed a discrimination complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, the Civil Service Commission is dismissing this appeal until MCAD has issued a final decision on the Appellant’s complaint.

The Commission amended a 5-day suspension for the demotion which was urged by the Dracut Housing Authority in regard to a maintenance supervisor with management troubles and unprofessional conduct. The Commission noted the Appellant was not given a chance to correct his behavior to the necessary standards.

The Commission concluded it did have jurisdiction to hear the appeal of a Dracut Housing Authority employee who was demoted. The Commission interpreted the term “involuntary separation” in provisions that covered housing authorities at G.L. c. 121B, §29 to also include demotions.

The Commission allowed the appeal of a recently promoted Winchester Police Sergeant who was demoted to Patrol Officer primarily for his alleged mishandling of a an unusually complex hit-and-run incident. A preponderance of the evidence failed to establish he engaged in misconduct or serious violations of his duties.

The Commission concluded that the Appellant engaged in serious misconduct warranting serious discipline, but certain charges were not proven. For that reason, and because of issues related to disparate treatment, the termination was modified to a demotion and long-term suspension.

Since the Appellant has also filed a discrimination complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, the Civil Service Commission is dismissing this appeal until MCAD has issued a final decision on the Appellant’s complaint.

The Commission dismissed the appeal of a Boston police officer who was seeking to void her resignation, on the grounds that it was coerced. It was dismissed due to a lack of timeliness as she failed to file within ten days of being on full notice of the claim she had been bringing forth and was fully able to do so.

Since the Appellant has also filed a discrimination complaint with MCAD, the Civil Service Commission is dismissing this appeal until MCAD has issued a final decision on the Appellant’s complaint.

The Commission affirmed the decision of the Boston Fire Department to discipline a firefighter with a one-day suspension for violating sick leave policy where he utilized 16 sick days in a period of one-year, providing proper medical documentation for only 5 of the 16 days. The Commission found no disparate treatment.

The discharge of a Boston police officer was modified by the Commission to a 10-day suspension. The Commission found the investigation by BPD was flawed where the evidence regarding the military grade explosives found in a Plymouth home was not sufficient to establish that the explosives belonged to the Appellant.

After the parties in this matter reached a global settlement agreement, the Commission allowed, with conditions, a modification of its original decision as it related to additional remedial orders required of the Fire Commission.

Superior Court decision regarding the Appellants' motion to enforce the Civil Service Commission decision that overturned their terminations and ordered an investigation regarding the misconduct of the incumbent Fire Chief.

The Superior Court affirmed the Commission's decision overturning the Westfield Fire Commission's decision to terminate the three Appellants.

Superior Court denied Respondent's request to stay Commission decision. Also consolidated appeals in Hampden Superior Court.

Firefighter disciplinary appeals allowed.

Due to a remand from the Appeals Court that vacated the Commission’s decision to alter a discharge decision of a New Bedford Airport worker, the Commission found a discrepancy between its statement of facts and final ruling in the original decision regarding the Appellant’s previous discipline.

The appeal of a Somerville Police Lieutenant who was challenging a five-day suspension for alleged harassment was allowed by the Commission. The Commission found the City failed to build its case with witnesses, and instead relied on testimony of an investigator from the Office of Professional Standards.

The Commission dismissed the appeal of a 1-day suspension from a Correction Officer for privacy violations as he neglected to request a hearing from DOC within 48 hours of being notified of the suspension.

Demotion appeal dismissed. Commission lacks jurisdiction to hear appeals regarding provisionally promoted employees who are demoted to their permanent position.

The 1-day suspension of the Compound Lieutenant at MCI Shirley was affirmed by the Commission as he failed to follow the orders of his captain to remove an inmate with a planned use of force. The Appellant claimed that he was told that the captain had recalled this order, but he failed to verify this information.

The Commission upheld the termination of a municipal police officer whose pattern of on-duty and off-duty misconduct, resulting from his alcohol abuse and a failure to avail himself of the numerous opportunities afforded to him to seek treatment, provided just cause to discharge him.

Discipline appeal denied. There was just cause for the MBTA Police Department to terminate the Appellant from his position as police sergeant for neglect of duty and untruthfulness related to an allegation of excessive force regarding a subordinate employee.

The Commission granted the appeal of a State Police Training Trooper, challenging the forfeiture of 10-days accrued time off for participation diverting proceeds from recycling breathalyzers to fund a retirement party. The Commission found that the Appellant was likely unaware the proceeds would be improperly used.

Since the Appellant has also filed a discrimination complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, the Civil Service Commission is dismissing this appeal until MCAD has issued a final decision on the Appellant’s complaint.

The Commission dismissed the Appellant’s appeal as it lacks jurisdiction to hear a disciplinary appeal from a probationary firefighter. Further, based on a careful review, the Commission opted not to initiate an investigation.

The Commission modified the discharge of a Pittsfield Highway Maintenance Craftsman for his inability to lift 50 pounds due to a back injury as well as his use of anti-anxiety medication while on duty. The Commission gave the City 60 days to conduct a comprehensive fitness for duty evaluation.

Superior Court vacated Commission Decision ruling that Commission has no jurisdiction over matters that do not involve a Trial Board.

The Commission accepted the appeals from four State Troopers who were suspended without pay following a brief hearing by a State Police Duty Status Board as the Commission found that the summary process relying on merely hearsay memorandum for evidence lacked basic due process elements.

Following the first Commission decision in this matter, a motion for reconsideration was filed by the State Police but the Commission rejected the State Police’s argument that it had no jurisdiction over disciplinary matters handled administratively in-house.

The Commission modified the four-tour suspension to a two-tour suspension based on findings different than the Boston Fire Department and because the discipline was not consistent with progressive discipline regarding a fire lieutenant with almost 30 years of service with no prior discipline.

The Commission denied the appeal of a now-retired Lieutenant at Bridgewater State Hospital and upheld his 5-day suspension. The Appellant had sent an unprofessional email to his superiors warning of employee dissatisfaction with the privatization of the facility and the bidding process for replacement jobs.

The Commission upheld the City's decision to terminate the Appellant as a police officer after he posted unsupported allegations, accusing fellow police officers of committing crimes and other misconduct.

Since the Appellant has also filed a discrimination complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, the Civil Service Commission is dismissing this appeal until MCAD has issued a final decision on the Appellant’s complaint.

The Superior Court affirmed the Commission's decision to uphold termination of Boston firefighter stating that Rowe was, "...guilty of substantial misconducting warranting termination.”

The Commission affirmed the discharge of a black Boston firefighter for making vile, racist, homophobic, and misogynistic postings on social media. The Commission’s rejected the Appellant’s claims of bias, disparate treatment, and entitlement to free speech protections under the first amendment.

The State Police had just cause to discipline the Appellant for failing to follow protocols related to outside employment, but the failure of the State Police to show repeated violations, as alleged, warranted a downward modification of the penalty.

The Commission affirmed the discharge of a Springfield probationary police officer who had yet served a full year plus two months. The Appellant’s probationary period was extended for two months by Springfield because of performance issues, and then extended by another six weeks for time spent on injury leave.

The Commission dismissed the Appellant’s appeals challenging whether the Boston Police Department followed proper procedures in issuing a 3-day suspension against him as the appeal was received approximately 10 years after the Appellant received notice of the action, well beyond the statutory 10-day filing deadline.

The Commission affirmed the discharge of a Worcester Housing Authority custodian who had an extensive disciplinary history and a propensity to lose master keys and access cards. The Custodian’s repeated failure to secure master keys jeopardized the security of hundreds of apartments.

The Commission dismissed the appeal of a Springfield Fire Captain who claimed he had been wrongfully bypassed for promotion to District Fire Chief as the chosen candidate was ranked higher than the Appellant, indicating no bypassed occurred.

The Commission denied the appeal from a Gloucester Deputy Fire Chief who received a 22-hour suspension over a discourteous email where insubordination was listed as a major offense in the Department’s Standard Operation Guidelines and the Chief was not required to apply progressive principles.

Appeals Court affirmed Superior Court decision which upheld Commission's decision to allow Appellant's disciplinary appeal.

Superior Court affirmed Commission's decision which concluded that there was no just cause to terminate a Housing Authority employee.

The Appellant has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the City failed to follow the requirements of the civil service law before terminating his employment and that his rights were prejudiced by the City’s failure to follow those requirements. Therefore, he must be restored to his permanent civil service

Discipline; demotion; police sergeant to police officer; appeal allowed.

The Commission overturned MassDOT's decision to terminate the Appellant as MassDOT failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Appellant engaged in the alleged misconduct.

The Commission dismissed the appeal of a Massachusetts State Trooper who resigned his position after he was suspended for refusing to comply with the vaccination mandate of Executive Order 595 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and as untimely.

The Commission allowed the Appellant’s appeal and rescinded his two-day suspension as the Town failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Appellant engaged in the alleged misconduct related to purported insubordination.

Since the Appellant has also filed a discrimination complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, the Civil Service Commission is dismissing this appeal until MCAD has issued a final decision on the Appellant’s complaint.

Respondent's request for reconsideration. Appellant's appeal is allowed and termination is overturned.

Discipline appeal allowed. Appointing Authority failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the firefighter was untruthful as part of an internal investigation. Termination overturned

After affirming the Commission's decision to overturn the termination of the Appellant, the Court sought clarification from the Commission regarding whether a lesser form of discipline was being recommended. This order clarifies that it was not.

Court affirmed Commission's decision to overturn the termination of a Bourne firefighter.

The Superior Court affirmed the Commission's decision to re-open a prior Commission decison and affirm the termination of the Appellant by the State Police.

Discipline appeal denied. There was just cause to suspend the Appellant for 5 days for failure to show for a scheduled shift and failure to call and notify supervisor.

The Commission upheld the discharge of a Correction Officer at MCI Shirley who showed a disregard for the basic responsibilities of his duty and engaged in inappropriate discussions with his brother and other inmates at the Worcester County House of Corrections and failing to notify DOC he had been charged with A&B.

The Commission affirmed the discharge of a Chicopee Police Officer who engaged in domestic abuse and then attempted to visit the victim at her home even though she had told him not to. At the time of the visit, the Appellant was serving a 60-day suspension and his charges had been continued for a year.

The Commission declined to reopen the case of the discharged paramedic who was found to have not been able to establish a violation of his civil service rights that would entitle him to reinstatement. The Appellant's authorization to practice as a paramedic was revoked for repeated mistakes on the job.

The Commission dismissed the appeal of a Massachusetts State Trooper who resigned his position after he was suspended for refusing to comply with the vaccination mandate of Executive Order 595 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and mootness.

The Commission affirmed the 20-day suspension of a long-serving Lowell fire lieutenant who refused to serve shifts on the back step of a ladder truck and went on to undermine the chain of command when attempting to avoid the assignment. The Commission found this to be conduct unbecoming of a firefighter.

The Commission affirmed the decision of the Town to suspend the Appellant for 15 days for neglect of duty, including his failure to act promptly regarding a violation of a restraining order and alleged excessive force.

When a Town is disputing the arbitrability of a termination, it is appropriate for the Civil Service Commission to dismiss the Appellant's appeal with a future effective date equal to the date when the arbitrability issue has been resolved.

Since the Appellant has also filed a discrimination complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, the Civil Service Commission is dismissing this appeal until MCAD has issued a final decision on the Appellant’s complaint.

The Commission affirmed the discharge of an MCI Concord Industrial Inspector who had an extensive history of offensive threats and intimidation of co-workers and law enforcement personnel.

The Commission affirmed the discharge of a Gardner Police Officer who was found to have pulled and aimed his taser at an uncooperative patient at a local hospital and then slapping him in the face. The Appellant failed to file a use of force report and lied to investigators about the incident.

The Commission found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal of a City of Waltham Public Health Nurse who was given a three-day suspension since his appointment was a provisional one.

The Commission dismissed the Appellant's layoff appeal as moot as the Appellant was not a civil service employee and did not occupy a civil service position.

The Commission dismissed the Appellant's bypass appeal for police officer for lack of jurisdiction as no candidate ranked below him was appointed and selection from a tied group of candidates does not constitute a bypass.

Bypass appeal dismissed. The Appellant's name should not have appeared at the top of the certification for Boston Police Officer as he had previously been granted and received that relief ordered by the Commission in a prior hiring cycle; and because the Appellant now exceeded the maximum age restriction of 40 years o

The Commission upheld the bypass of a candidate for municipal police officer based on a preponderance of the evidence showing that the candidate had not been truthful about his involvement in alleged criminal activity committed at the premises where he lived.

The Commission denied the Appellant’s bypass appeal for reserve firefighter based on his prior discipline as a City employee.

Promotional bypass appeal denied. Commission upheld City's decision to bypass Appellant for Fire Chief based in part on performance related issues when the Appellant was serving as Provisional Chief.

Promotional bypass denied. Prior discipline provided reasonable justification for bypass.

Bypass appeal for police officer denied. Appellant's prior performance in Police Academy and his failure to report an injury provided City with reasonable justification to bypass him.

The Appointing Authority had reasonable justification to bypass a candidate for appointment as a firefighter who provided implausible, inconsistent, and incomplete responses about his residency history during the application process.

Promotional bypass appeal allowed. The City's decision to bypass the Appellant for the position of Fire Captain was not consistent with basic merit principles and was the result of personal bias and bias based on the Appellant's sex. Absent an agreement by the parties, the Appellant is to be promoted to the position

The Commission allowed the Appellant’s bypass appeal, concluding that the Appellant’s few, minor discrepancies in the documentation submitted with his application did not provide the Town of Auburn reasonable justification to bypass the Appellant for original appointment as a permanent full-time police officer.

Bypass; original appointment; firefighter; appeal allowed.

Discipline appeal denied. There was just cause for DOC to suspend the Appellant for 2 days regarding misconduct related to the treatment of an inmate. Bypass appeal dismissed as a tie is not a bypass.

The Civil Service Commission allowed the Appellant’s bypass appeal and ordered that he receive one additional consideration for appointment as a permanent, full-time police officer based on the City’s failure to conduct a thorough review of his candidacy

Promotional bypass appeal for police sergeant denied. Appellant's poor interview performance was a valid reason to bypass him for promotional appointment.

Bypass appeal denied. The Appellant's prior misconduct and poor judgment provided the Boston Police Department to bypass the Appellant for the position of police officer.

Bypass; original appointment; police officer.

Bypass appeal denied. The Town established by a preponderance of the evidence that the decision to bypass the Appellant was reasonably justified for sound and sufficient reasons, including, in particular, a pattern of motor vehicle infractions, a history of violent behavior and poor neighbor references.

The Commission affirmed DOC's decision to bypass the Appellant for Correction Officer I based on the Appellant's relatively recent record of misconduct.

Promotional bypass appeal for police sergeant denied. Appellant's repeated derogatory comments about his supervisors and his overall poor communication and interpersonal skills are a valid reason to bypass him for promotional appointment.

The Commission denied the bypass appeal of a candidate for appointment to the position of municipal police officer whose recent pattern of poor judgment in the three years preceding the bypass, including an OUI and negligent operation of motor vehicle while uninsured, reasonably justified his bypass.

Bypass appeal for Environmental Police Officer A/B position denied. Appellant's inability to follow MEP rules as a private citizen is a valid reason to bypass him for appointment.

The Commission allowed the Appellant’s bypass appeal based on the Town's failure to show a nexus between one incident of misconduct as a teenager and his ability to serve as a police officer.

An omission and conflicting information provided by the Appellant during the background investigation provided the Boston Police Department with reasonable justification to bypass him for appointment to the position of police officer.

The Commission allowed the appeal of the Appellant, a 37-year old, longtime resident of Boston, who has been repeatedly bypassed or non-selected for reasons related in large part to whether he has been truthful about the details of an incident that occurred during his teenage years while he was in high schoo.

The Boston Police Department was justified in bypass the Appellant for appointment as a police officer based on prior misconduct involving the use of a racial slur against owners of a restaurant.

By a 4-1 vote, the Commission's majority concluded that, notwithstanding flaws in the review process, the City was able to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Appellant's problematic prior employment history justified his bypass for firefighter.

The Commission denied the Appellant's bypass appeal. The Appointing Authority had reasonable justification to bypass a candidate for appointment as a police officer who provided implausible, inconsistent and incomplete responses about his residency and employment history during the application process.

The Commission dismissed the Appellant's bypass appeal for Boston Police Officer based in part on the Appellant's repeated failure to list all prior employers on his employment applications.

The Commission dismissed this appeal based on the fact that the Appellant was not bypassed for appointment. Rather, he was not selected from a group of tied candidates and no candidate ranked below him was appointed.

For multiple reasons cited in this decision, the City of Newton was unable to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the positive results of a hair drug test, which, unlike urine drug testing, has not been approved by federal regulators, was conclusive of ingestion of an illegal drug, the reason for bypass.

Bypass appeal for police officer allowed. The Respondent was unable to prove that the Appellant engaged in criminal conduct as a high school student and/or that he was untruthful about the alleged conduct. Relief granted.

Bypass; original appointment; police officer. Appeal denied. Appellant's prior misconduct provided the City of Revere with reasonable justification to bypass him for appointment.

The Commission dismissed the Appellant's bypass appeal for Correction Officer I based on the findings of two mental health professionals regarding her suitability to serve in this capacity.

The Commission adopted the Tentative Decision of the DALA Magistrate upholding DOC's decision to bypass the Appellant for CO I based on his past employment record and an incident in which the Appellant threatened his parents.

Bypass appeal for original appointment as a police officer denied. The Appellant's poor interview performance provided the City of Quincy with reasonable justification to bypass him for appointment.

Bypass appeal denied. The Appellant's prior misconduct and failure to complete all questions on the application as instructed provided DOC with reasonable justification to bypass the Appellant for the position of Correction Officer I (CO I).

The Commission dismissed the Appellant's bypass appeal for original appointment as a firefighter as no candidate ranked the candidate was selected for appointment.

The Commission allowed the appeal of a candidate whose appointment by the Mayor of Somerville to the position of Reserve Police Officer failed to receive confirmation of the Somerville City Council for reasons that involved unsubstantiated claims about the candidate’s alleged untruthfulness.

To ensure enforcement of a prior Commission decision without impeding the City's ability to appoint police officers, the Commission issued a clarification of the relief to be granted to the Appellant.

The Commission allowed the bypass appeal of a military veteran seeking appointment as a firefighter with the Brockton Fire Department based on the appointing authority’s erroneous conclusions that the Appellant did not qualify for residency preference and had been less than truthful regarding his claim to residency

The Commission dismissed the Appellant's bypass appeal for police officer as it was untimely, but reserved the right to consider issues raised in this appeal as part of a broader, ongoing investigation of the Methuen Police Department.

The Commission upheld the promotional bypass of a police sergeant who had a consistent history of discipline over the course of his career as compared to the lower ranked candidate who had no disciplinary history, finding just cause to bypass him for promotion.

The Commission affirmed the decision of the Boston Police Department to bypass the Appellant for original appointment as a police officer based on his recent OUI and poor driving record.

Bypass appeal dismissed based on the Appellant's failure to prosecute his appeal.

Bypass; original appointment; Correction Officer I. CORI-related issues. Appeal denied.

The Commission allowed the Appellant’s bypass appeal as the Springfield Police Department (SPD) did not show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Appellant failed to meet the civil service residency preference requirement, the sole reason offered by the SPD for bypassing the Appellant.

The Superior Court affirmed the Commission's decision to deny the Appellant's promotional bypass appeal.

Promotional bypass appeal denied. The Appellant's poor interview performance provided the Springfield Fire Department with reasonable justification to bypass the Appellant for the position of District Fire Chief

Bypass; original appointment; firefighter; appeal dismissed; tie is not a bypass.

The Commission adopted the Recommended Decision of the DALA Magistrate and affirmed the City's decision to bypass the Appellant for promotion to Fire Lieutenant based on the selected candidate's specialized training and superior interview performance.

The Town's use of a de facto assessment center without authorization from HRD and other procedural flaws resulted in the Appellant's bypass appeal being allowed.

The Commission denied the parties' joint request for 310 relief and dismissed the Appellant's bypass appeal based in part that the appeal was not timely filed with the Commission.

Bypass appeal denied. The Appellant's prior misconduct provided DOC with reasonable justification to bypass the Appellant for the position of Correction Officer I.

The Commission allowed the appeal of a female Dedham police officer who was bypassed for promotion to Sergeant in favor of a male candidate, after finding that the promotional process was unlawfully influenced by a predisposition for the selected candidate and unjustified personal bias against the Appellant and an unr

Bypass appeal for fire alarm operator denied. The Appellant was not in compliance with the Department's policies regarding visible tattoos.

The Commission upheld the City’s decision to bypass the Appellant as a reserve fighter based on the Appellant’s inconsistent and/or incomplete responses on her application and during her interview.

Bypass appeal denied. The Appellant's untruthfulness during hiring process provided the City with reasonable justification to bypass her for appointment as a police officer.

The Commission dismissed the Appellant's bypass appeal for the position of fire fighter as no candidate ranked below him was selected for appointment.

The Commission denied the Appellant's bypass appeal for appointment as a firefighter based in part of the Appellant's lack of clarity and consistency regarding his prior employment.

The Commission upheld the Somerville City Council's vote to not confirm the Mayor’s conditional offer of promotion based on the Appellant's prior untruthfulness as a police officer.

The DOC has established that it conducted a reasonably thorough review of Mr. Kumar’s qualifications for appointment as a DOC Correction Officer and that his spotty employment record and a possible pattern of aggressive behavior over the past five year period provides reasonable justification for the decision to bypass

Bypass appeal denied. MEP has shown that the Appellant did not meet the minimum entrance requirements for the position of Environmental Police Officer A/B.

The Commission dismissed the Appellant’s promotional bypass appeal as no bypass occurred. Rather, the Appellant was not selected by DOC for a provisional appointment to the position of Recreation Officer II.

Promotional bypass appeal denied. The Town's concern about the Appellant's management skills and the strong interview performance of the selected candidate were valid reasons for the Town to bypass the Appellant for promotion to police sergeant.

The Commission allowed the 2021 bypass appeal of a candidate for appointment as a Somerville Reserve Firefighter who, for the second time, was not given a fair, impartial and reasonably thorough review and was treated differently than other candidates, most of them with ties to the City.

A majority of the Commission adopted the recommended decision of the DALA Magistrate, upholding the decision to bypass the Appellant for police officerbased on her for repeated failures to acknowledge that she was the registered owner of a car her family had given to her brother.

New Bedford was justified to bypass Appellant for police officer for same reasons upheld by Commission in prior hiring cycle.

Bypass appeal denied. The Appellant's performance as a crossing guard and other factors provided the City with reasonable justification to bypass the Appellant for the position of reserve police officer.

Bypass; original appointment; police officer. Appeal denied. Poor driving history provided BPD with reasonable justification to bypass Appellant.

The Commission dismissed the appeal of the Appellant as he is unable to show that he was bypassed for promotional appointment or that he is otherwise an aggrieved person who should be granted relief.

Superior Court dismissed Appellant's complaint for judicial review based on lack of prosecution for failure to meet court filing requirements.

Promotional bypass appeal dismissed. Commission lacks jurisdiction over provisional promotions.

The Commission dismissed the Appellant's appeal after concluding that the Town did not violate the civil service law or rules when making a provisional appointment to the position of Parks Supervisor.

DOC had reasonable justification to bypass the Appellant for appointment as a Correction Officer I (CO I) based on: two poor references, including one from a longtime family friend; and prior alleged misconduct which, at a minimum, calls into question whether the Appellant has the maturity and good judgement at this t

The Commission allowed the Appellant's bypass appeal for Boston Police Officer, concluding that the reasons for bypass, including transgressions as a teenager, were stale and unrelated to the Appellant's current ability to perform the duties of police officer.

Under unique circumstances presented by the facts of this appeal, the Commission granted limited relief to a highly qualified candidate bypassed for appointment as a Fire Captain based on pending criminal charges for which he was acquitted a few weeks later after a much-delayed trial due to the closure of the courts.

The City of Brockton had reasonable justification to bypass the Appellant based on his inability to comply with the Police Department's tattoo policy.

The Commission dismissed the Appellant's bypass appeal as he is currently unable to obtain a license to carry a firearm, which is a uniformly enforced requirement to be appointed as a Boston police of

Promotional bypass appeal dismissed. Commission lacks jurisdiction over provisional promotions.

The Commission allowed the Appellant’s bypass appeal for original appointment as a permanent, full-time firefighter and ordered his reconsideration based on the many procedural flaws in the Everett Fire Department’s review process.

Poor driving history provided reasonable justification for City of Lawrence's decision to bypass Appellant for police officer.

Bypass appeal for original appointment to police officer allowed. BPD failed to show that stale prior misconduct was a valid reason for bypassing the Appellant for appointment.

The Commission allowed the Appellant’s bypass appeal for original appointment as Correction Officer I (CO 1) as DOC was unable to show a nexus between the Appellant’s alleged unlawful conduct approximately 17 years ago and his current ability to serve as a CO I. Other systemic issues were identified as well.

Bypass appeal for original appointment as a firefighter allowed. Personal bias was a factor in the appointment process, warranting relief by the Commission.

The Commission dismissed the Appellant's bypass appeal for police officer on summary decision based on the undisputed facts related to the Appellant's prior employment history, including his prior employment as a police cadet in New Bedford.

The City of Quincy failed to take the necessary steps to ensure a fair and impartial review process where the Mayor’s son was one of the candidates under consideration for appointment as a police officer. To ensure that the Appellant, who was not selected for appointment despite being ranked above the Mayor’s son, rec

The Commission allowed the Appellant’s bypass appeal for police officer as none of the reasons justified the bypass of this qualified candidate, especially when numerous lower-ranked candidates had far more problematic histories.

The Commission adopted the Tentative Decision of the DALA Magistrate, affirming DOC's decision to bypass the Appellant for CO I based on his prior misconduct and poor driving history.

Poor interview performance by Appellant provided Somerville with reasonable justification to bypass Appellant for police officer.

Commission upheld bypass based on unbiased, good faith judgment that selected candidate’s work overseeing community policing justified top leadership role.

The Commission dismissed the Appellant's bypass appeal for Springfield police officer as she was unable to provide any evidence to show that she qualified for the residency preference, without which she was not reachable for consideration.

While the Appellant had received a number of favorable performance reviews from his current employer, the Department of Correction had reasonable justification to bypass him on the basis of an extensive history of discipline and his ineligibility to obtain a license to carry a firearm

Promotional bypass appeal denied. The City has shown that the selected candidate's experience provided reasonable justification to bypass the Appellant for the position of Fire Captain.

Promotional bypass appeal denied. The Appellant's recent misconduct, which resulted in a last chance agreement, provided the City with reasonable justification to bypass the Appellant for the position of fire lieutenant.

By a 4-1 vote, bypass appeal allowed. DOC's review was inconsistent with the state's anti-discrimination law and did not constitute a fair and thorough review of the Appellant's background for the position of Correction Officer I (CO I).

The Commission adopted the recommendation of the DALA Magistrate and allowed the Appellant's appeal as the BFD has not shown that the Appellant failed to meet the residency preference requirements.

The Commission affirmed the decision of the Boston Police Department to bypass the Appellant for appointment as a police officer based on her failure to be forthcoming with BPD investigators during the application and review process as well as the numerous past and continuing relationships with known criminals.

Bypass appeal allowed. The Appellant's driving history was not shown to be reasonable justification to bypass him for appointment and the evidence shows that his answers to questions posed to him were truthful.

Bypass appeal denied. Based on one incident alone involving a recent violent incident at a casino, the Town had reasonable justification to bypass the Appellant for appointment as a police officer.

The Commission has determined that the appeal filed by the Appellant was not timely filed. Further, the Commission affirms the decision of the Massachusetts Parole Board to bypass the Appellant for appointment as a full-time Field Parole Officer A/B due to disciplinary action in the Appellant’s employment history.

The Commission denied the Appellant's bypass appeal for Correction Officer I based on inconsistent answers provided to the Department of Correction during the hiring process.

The Commission denied the Appellant’s bypass appeal, finding that the City of Chelsea was justified in bypassing him for original appointment as a firefighter based on two positive drug tests indicating recent use of marijuana, which he had not disclosed on his application.

Bypass appeal regarding original appointment to police officer denied. The Appellant's agreement to forego consideration for appointment provided reasonable justification to bypass him from the next eligible list only.

The Commission accepted the recommended decision of the DALA Magistrate's to overturn the Appellant's bypass for police sergeant as the City failed to show that the Appellant engaged in any misconduct when he reported to work after receiving permission from HRD to take a make-up examination for health-related reasons.

Bypass appeal dismissed. The Appellant's non-selection did not constitute a bypass as he was not within the 2N+1 formula of eligible candidates for firefighter.

The Commission dismissed the Appellant’s bypass appeal based on the fact that he was ineligible for appointment as a Taunton police officer as the City has accepted those provisions of the civil service law setting a maximum age restriction of 32 regarding the appointment of police officers.

Bypass appeal dismissed. Based on the undisputed facts, the Appellant cannot show that he qualified for the residency preference for appointment as a Lawrence police officer.

Bypass appeal denied. The Appellant's prior record as a police officer provided the Parole Board with reasonable justification not to appoint the Appellant as a Parole Officer A/B.

Bypass appeal dismissed; tie is not a bypass.

Bypass appeal denied. The Appellant's recent criminal history coupled with a pattern of failing to appear for court appearances provided the Department of Correction with reasonable justification to bypass the Appellant for the position of Correction Officer I.

The Commission accepted the recommendation of the DALA Magistrate and affirmed the City's decision to bypass the Appellant based on his limited work history and less than forthcoming answers during the review process.

The Appellant's inability to show that he qualified for the residency preference in Boston provided the Boston Police Department with reasonable justification to bypass him for appointment as a police officer.

Superior Court remanded case to Commission for additional findings.

On remand, the Commission clarified why the Appellant's bypass appeal should be denied. His failure to provide HRD with an updated email address, and his failure to monitor the address he provided to HRD, resulted in him missing the deadline for signing the Certification.

Boston Police Department was not required to consider candidate for police officer who failed to sign Certification prior to deadline.

Promotional bypass appeal dismissed. The Appellant was not bypassed for appointment as no candidate ranked lower on the certification was promoted to Correctional Program Officer C (CPO C).

Bypass appeal for original appointment as police officer allowed. The preponderance of evidence did not support the City's stated reasons for bypass

Bypass appeal for original appointment as a police officer denied. The Appellant's poor employment history provided the Boston Police Department with reasonable justification to bypass the Appellant.

Promotional bypass appeal dismissed. Selection of a candidate tied for the same rank on a certification does not constitute a bypass that can be appealed to the Civil Service Commission.

Promotional bypass; Police Captain. Appeal denied. Appellant's poor interview performance provided the City of Somerville with reasonable justification to bypass the Appellant.

The Commission allowed the Appellant’s promotional bypass appeal based on the results of a DOC internal affairs investigation that was pending at the time of Appellant’s bypass. The result of that investigation was that the Appellant was not suspended, meaning that he would have been eligible for promotion.

the Commission has exhausted its ability to exercise extraordinary relief pursuant to Chapter 310 of the Acts of 1993, the source of the Commission’s equity powers.4 The Appellant’s passivity or nonresponsiveness over the past year has led to a situation in which the Appellant is now 5 years older than the max age.

The Superior Court affirmed the Commission's decision allowing the Appellant's promotional bypass appeal for Fire Lieutenant, confirming the Commission's "broad remedial powers" in regard to the relief that was ordered by the Commission.

Bypass appeal allowed. The Town was unable to provide any reasons why the Town Manager, who serves as the Appointing Authority, overruled the recommendation the Appellant to the position of firefighter in the Town's Fire Department.

Bypass; original appointment; Environmental Police Officer A/B; appeal denied; failed to meet minimum entrance requirements.

Bypass appeal for original appointment as a Correction Officer I denied. Appellant's two prior OUIs, one which involved unlawful possession of a loaded firearm, provided the Department of Correction with reasonable justification to bypass him for appointment.

Bypass; original appointment; police officer; appeal allowed.

Bypass; original appointment; police officer; appeal allowed.

A recent OUI provided DOC with reasonable justification to bypass the Appellant for Correction Officer I.

Bypass appeal allowed. The Appellant's immaturity and poor interview performance provided the City of Somerville with reasonable justification to bypass him for appointment as a reserve police officer.

The Commission dismissed the Appellant's bypass appeal as moot as he was subsequently promoted to DOC Lieutenant after filing his bypass appeal.

the Town Manager ultimately conducted a fair, thorough review and provided sound and sufficient reasons for bypassing the Appellant for the positions of police Lieutenant and Captain in the Town of Plymouth’s Police Department.

The Commission allowed the Appellant's bypass appeal for firefighter, concluding that the reasons for bypass were unsupported or contrary to basic merit principles.

To ensure enforcement of a prior Commission decision without impeding the City's ability to appoint firefighters, the Commission issued a clarification of the relief to be granted to the Appellant.

Promotional bypass appeal allowed in part. The City erred by not considering the Appellant for promotional appointment, but, based on the unique circumstances referenced in the decision, only limited relief is warranted.

The Commission upheld the Boston Police Department's decision to bypass the Appellant for police officer based on his failure to provide a long list of required background information despite being given sufficient time to do so.

Bypass; original appointment; firefighter. Appeal allowed. City failed to show that Appellant did not meet residency preference requirements.

Bypass appeal denied. The City of Lowell had reasonable justification to bypass the Appellant for original appointment as a police officer based on his prior failure to complete the Police Academy and his poor academic performance subsequent to his disqualification from the Academy.

The Commission dismissed the Appellant's police officer examination appeal as he failed to first file an appeal with HRD as required by the civil service law.

Exam appeal denied. Appellant was not aggrieved as he was unable to show that he completed E&E component of exam.

Examination appeal denied. The Commission lacks jurisdiction to hear an examination appeal that was not first filed with HRD.

Education and experience examination appeal allowed. HRD's decision to not grant the Appellant credit for 1714 hours as a temporary fire lieutenant was arbitrary and capricious and not consistent with basic merit principles.

HRD Medical Standards cannot be appealed to Civil Service Commission.

Fair test appeal denied. The removal of certain questions from the examination that were not referenced in the reading list did not result in an unfair test.

Promotional education and experience examination appeal dismissed. The Appellant failed to filed a timely appeal with the Commission.

Examination appeal related to two-point preference for 25 years of service denied. Time spent in Police Academy does not count toward the calculation of the required 25 years.

The Commission dismissed the Appellant's examination appeal as he was unable to show that HRD calculated his E&E score incorrectly.

Concluding that HRD’s decision to limit registration for the March 25, 2023 District Fire Chief examination to those who registered for the examination administered in May 2022 was permissible under the civil service law and was not arbitrary or capricious, the Commission dismissed the Appellant’s appeal.

The decision to extend the eligible list for Boston Police Captain was not arbitrary and capricious. Appeal denied.

Superior Court dismissed Appellant's judicial appeal based on his failure to file a timely judicial appeal.

The Commission dismissed the Appellant's education and experience appeal regarding a Senior Fire Alarm operator examination as the Appellant is unable to show that she completed the E&E portion of the examination.

The Commission denied the Appellant's appeal as he was unable to show that HRD failed to credit him with all points due to him for time served in the Weymouth Fire Department, where he is seeking to be promoted to Deputy Fire Chief.

E&E Examination appeal related to Fire Captain examination denied. Appellant could not show that he submitted E&E claim to HRD in a timely manner.

The Commission dismissed as moot the education and experience appeal of a candidate for Boston Police Lieutenant as HRD granted the Appellant all of the points he was seeking.

The Commission dismissed the Appellant's appeal as moot after concluding that he had received proper credit for his college degree as part of a recent promotional examination for Boston Fire Lieutenant.

Relying on prior Commission decisions , a majority of the Commission denied the Appellants' request to overrule HRD's decision to limit participation in re-administered police promotional examinations to those who sat for the initial examinations in 2022.

HRD was justified in not granting Appellant E&E credit when he was unable to show that he completed that portion of the examination prior to the deadline.

Examination appeal denied. Appellant was not entitled to re-take the ELPAT.

The Commission dismissed the Appellant's fair test appeal regarding the statewide promotional examination for Fire Lieutenant as he failed to file a timely appeal with the state's Human Resources Division (HRD).

Fair test appeal regarding Fire Captain examination denied. Removal of 14 questions not on reading list did not make it an unfair test.

The Commission dismissed as moot the Appellant's education and experience appeal related to a DOC Head Chef examination as HRD awarded the Appellant with the points he was seeking.

The Commission dismissed the Appellant’s appeal regarding the Boston District Fire Chief promotional examination as he was unable to show that he is an aggrieved person.

Examination appeal related to two-point preference for 25 years of service denied. Time spent in Police Academy does not count toward the calculation of the required 25 years.

Promotional examination appeals denied as Appellants failed to file a fair test appeal with HRD with seven days of the examination. HRD encouraged to review process for advising applicants of appeal rights.

Promotional Examination appeal denied. HRD's requirements regarding job-related Master's degree were not arbitrary or capricious.

Education and Experience Examination appeal denied. Awarding of points requested would not change Appellant's total score or ranking; appeal is moot.

The Commission dismissed the Appellant's appeal regarding the fire lieutenant promotional examination as he failed to first file a timely appeal with HRD.

Education and experience examination appeal denied. HRD's decision not to count campus police officer experience toward the 2 points awarded for 25 years of experience as a police officer.

Examination appeal related to two-point preference for 25 years of service denied. Time spent in Police Academy does not count toward the calculation of the required 25 years.

Exam appeal denied for mootness; result would not change Appellant's rank on eligible list.

Education and experience examination appeal denied. The Appellant's score was properly calculated.

Promotional examination appeal denied. The Appellant failed to show that he completed the E&E component of the examination as instructed.

Superior Court Affirmed Commission's Decision on four of five issues. Remanded regarding HRD's use of career experience board regarding education and experience component.

The Superior Court affirmed a Commission decision regarding examination appeals for the position of Captain at the Department of Correction.

On remand, the Commission, consistent with the Court's decision, ordered appropriate relief to the Appellants who were aggrieved by DOC's decision to deviate from the statute related to scoring of education and experience points on a promotional examination.

The Commission denied motions for reconsideration filed by both parties.

HRD has provided a reasonable justification to use a standardized, rescaled TK component score in calculating the final exam scores of the Appellants on the DOC Captain’s Examination. The sue of such a methodology has been shown to be statistically justified, consistent with general practice, and produced a fair test r

Fair test appeal; Fire Lieutenant; dismissed; untimely; removal of 14 questions not on reading list did not make the test unfair.

Examination appeal related to education and experience denied. HRD's decision not to award police officer credit for time spent in the Coast Guard was not arbitrary or capricious.

Appeals Court affirmed Commission's decision denying Appellant E&E credit for time served as an auxiliary and special police officer.

Concluding that HRD’s decision to limit registration for the March 25, 2023 District Fire Chief examination to those who registered for the examination administered in May 2022 was permissible under the civil service law and was not arbitrary or capricious, the Commission dismissed the Appellant’s appeal

The Commission dismissed the Appellant's education, training, certification and experience (ETC&E) appeal regarding the statewide promotional examination for Fire Captain as he failed to file a timely appeal with the state's Human Resources Division (HRD).

Examination appeal related to two-point preference for 25 years of service denied. Time spent in Police Academy does not count toward the calculation of the required 25 years.

The Commission allowed the Appellant's education and experience appeal related to a promotional examination for Springfield Police Sergeant as he was able to show that he did provide the E&E answers and supporting to documentation to HRD, albeit through email.

Promotional education and experience examination appeal dismissed. The Appellant failed to provide documentation to HRD in a timely manner to support his experience as a dispatcher.

Superior Court affirmed Commission's decision which concluded that actual service as a police officer is required in order to be considered employed in the force regarding promotional examination eligibility.

The Superior Court denied the plaintiffs' request for an order requiring HRD to allow any of the plaintiffs to sit for the rescheduled police promotional examination, even if they didn't sign up for the canceled 2022 examination.

Examination appeal; education and experience; HRD's decision not to give credit for Industrial Instructor experience as part of Correction Officer I examination was not arbitrary or capricious.

Education and Experience appeal denied. Appellant is not aggrieved because he could not show that he completed the E&E component of the examination.

Education and Experience examination appeal denied. Appellant was unable to show that she completed instructions for the E&E portion of the examination.

The Commission dismissed the Appellant's examination appeal related to the statewide examination for police officer as the Commission lacks jurisdiction over multiple choice appeals and the Appellant failed to file a timely fair test appeal.

Promotional examination appeal denied. The Appellant was unable to show that she followed the instructions to complete the E&E component of the examination.

HRD's decision to award less E&E points for a bachelor's degree in Exercise Science than the previous examination cycle did not result in any harm to the Appellant as his rank on the eligible list would not be changed if he had been awarded the higher points. Appeal dismissed.

Education and Experience Examination appeal denied. Appellant was unable to show that he completed the E&E portion of the examination prior to the deadline.

HRD's policy to not recognize college degrees from institutions that are not regionally-accredited is not arbitrary and capricious.

The Superior Court dismissed a judicial appeal of the Commission's decision upholding an HRD determination related to the 2-point preference in promotional appeals for 25 years of service as the appeal was not timely filed with the Court.

Examination appeal related to two-point preference for 25 years of service denied. Time spent in Police Academy does not count toward the calculation of the required 25 years.

After review, the Commission declined to initiate an investigation regarding certain promotional appointments in the Haverhill Fire Department, finding insufficient evidence of a violation of the civil service law or rules.

After review, the Commission ordered MassDOT to immediately resume processing reclassification requests which had been held in abeyance for years due to issues related with a classification study.

The Commission denied the Petitioner's request for investigation related to the two most recent hiring cycles for transit police officer as there was no evidence of any violation of the civil service law or rules.

The Commission dismissed the Appellant's appeal after determining he is not an aggrieved person, but kept open an investigation regarding allegations related to prior promotional appointments.

Consistent with prior decisions, the Commission denied the Appellant' request to investigate HRD's decision to limit eligibility for a re-scheduled police promotional examination to only those candidates who had registered for the examination administered (but not scored) last year, as HRD's decision was not arbitrary