Walles commented on the issue, informing the staff that Smith had indicated that if anyone talks to her about her retirement again that she will file a complaint at the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. Walles indicated she would file a grievance if anyone approached Smith about her retirement. Rego did not comment on this matter any further.

Walles commented on the issue, informing the staff that Smith had indicated that if anyone talks to her about her retirement again that she will file a complaint at the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. Walles indicated she would file a grievance if anyone approached Smith about her retirement. Rego did not comment on this matter any further.

In the present matter, the Hearing Officer noted the following allegations by the Charging Party: On June 19, 2013, Walles informed staff during a staff meeting with all Malden Office social workers that a co-worker named Shirley Smith would file a complaint at the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and a grievance if anyone spoke to her about her retirement.

Although the Commission recorded the hearings in this case, the parties engaged a stenographer who recorded and transcribed the recordings of the proceedings and agreed that the stenographers recordings and transcriptions would constitute the official record of the hearings. 5 Pertinent caselaw includes the complaint filed by the Appellant at the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD), the Superior court decision on the Appellants

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 Appellants 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 Appellants 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 Appellants complaint.

Paul Wood. 2 - Three pages from Statement by James Kelley to MCAD dated September 25, 2009. 3 - Three pages from Statement to MCAD by Andrea Thomas dated August 18, 2011 4 - Testimony from Paul Wood to DSLR on April 10, 2013. 5 - Three pages a letter to James Kelley dated February 23 from Paul Wood, 2012 plus two emails from BPS to James Kelley. s Andrea Alves ThomaCounse l DLROCT 9'15 aul 0:38 Assistant Corporation 4A ordon Davis. investigator commission

Quincy 2 At the investigation, Kelley introduced a number of exhibits from cases he filed previously at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, and the Department of Labor Relations; and file; personnel his in placed information to related documents recommendations from past supervisors, in order to provide background information and to support his allegations that the Employer has been disingenuous

All emails exchanged with City of Boston employees including the Human Rights Commission, the Mayors Office, and the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and any others[;] [c.]

All emails exchanged with City of Boston employees including the Human Rights Commission, the Mayors Office, and the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and any others[;] [c.]

In an email communication to this office on May 27, 2025, the Department stated that the requested records were the subject of an ongoing dispute before the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, MCAD Docket No. 24BPA01461. The Department further stated that Item 4 of the request had failed to meet the standard set forth in Jaideep Chawla v. Dept of Revenue, Suffolk Sup. No. 1784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019).

Specifically, pursuant to section 1 of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination Rules of Procedure, the record in every charge pending before the Commission shall be confidential and exempt from M.G.L. c. 66 and 66A pursuant to M.G.L. c. 4, 7 (26)(f). See 804 CMR 1.04(1). . . .