City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300,304 (1997). See Town of Watertown v, Arria, 16 Mass. App. Ct. 331 (1983); 473, 477 (1995); Melsaac v. Civil Service Commission, 38 Mass. App. Ct. Police Department of Boston v. Collins, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2000); City of Leominster y. Stratton, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 726, 728 (2003).

City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 304 (1997). See Town of Watertown v. Arria, 16 Mass. App. Ct. 331 (1983). McIsaac v. Civil Service Commission, 38 Mass. App. Ct. 473, 477 (1995). Police Department of Boston v. Collins, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2000). City of Leominster v. Stratton, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 726, 728 (2003).

Municipal Ct., 359 Mass. 211, 214 (1971); City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commn, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 300, 304, rev.den., 426 Mass. 1102 (1997); Selectmen of Wakefield v. Judge of First Dist. Ct., 262 Mass. 477, 482 (1928). The Commission determines justification for discipline by inquiring, "whether the employee has been guilty of substantial misconduct which adversely affects the public interest by impairing the efficiency of public service."

City of Cambridge, 7 MLC 2111, 2112, Whittier Regional School Committee, 13 MLC 1325, 1332 (1986).

City of Cambridge v. Baldasaro, 50 Mass. App. Ct. 1 (2000). Just cause must be found in the absence of unfair treatment based on the employees political affiliation, race, color, age, national origin, sex, marital status, handicap, or religion. G.L. c. 3, 4. The civil service law is meant to protect upright civil servants from arbitrary removal, not to shield the inefficient and unworthy. See Whitney v.

City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commn, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 303-305, rev. den., 428 Mass. 1102 (1997).

City of Cambridge v.

City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commn, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 303-305, rev. den., 428 Mass. 1102 (1997).

City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commission. 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 304 (1997). Reasonable justification requires that the Appointing Authoritys actions be were based on adequate reasons sufficiently supported by credible evidence, when weighed by an unprejudiced mind, guided by common sense and correct rules of law. Commissioners of Civil Service v. Municipal Ct. of the City of Boston, 359 Mass. 214 (1971).

City of Cambridge vs. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass.App.Ct.300, 304 (1997). Reasonable justification means the Appointing Authoritys actions were based on adequate reasons supported by credible evidence, when weighed by an unprejudiced mind, guided by common sense and by correct rules of law. Selectmen of Wakefield v. Judge of First Dist. Ct. of E. Middlesex 262 Mass, 477, 482 (1928). Commissioners of Civil Service vs.