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

Article 23, Section 4 states: Any employee wishing to appeal a disciplinary action taken pursuant to Article 23 of this Agreement, must sign and submit to the Employer, on a form prepared by the Employer a confirmation that the employee has not appealed said disciplinary action to any other forum, including but not limited to the Civil Service Commission, Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and the Equal Opportunity Commission.

However, in June 2010, Luongo filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission against Discrimination (MCAD). In July 2010, both DDS and the Unions counsel advised her that under the terms of their CBA, her grievances would be considered withdrawn if she did not withdraw her MCAD complaint.

The Town further advised that requested records are related to the pending matter before the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, Charlotte DiClemente v. Town of Natick, James Quilty, Cara Rossi, MCAD Docket No. 20BEM02451.

In a telephone conference between a Town representative and a staff attorney, the Town advised that the requested records are related to a pending matter before the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, Charlotte DiClemente v. Town of Natick, James Quilty, Cara Rossi, MCAD Docket No. 20BEM02451.

Davis with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) which was transferred to Superior Court. 5. On February 4, 2013, there was a fire at 25-27 Charlesbank Road in Newton (2013 Fire). Ladder 3 and Engine 10 from the Newton Fire Department were among those responding to the fire. Lt. Michael Murphy was on Ladder 3. The Appellant, Firefighter Lamont Davis, was on Engine 10. (Testimony of Lt. Murphy and Mr. Davis) 6.

In particular, Lewis alleges that she was not informed of the disposition of her grievance, and that she waited too long to file a complaint at the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD). Under the circumstances presented here, neither of these allegations states a claim for a breach of the Associations duty of fair representation. Lewis claim is untimely.

Lewis believed that she had to complete the Union grievance procedure before she could file a discrimination claim with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD). At some point, Lewis called the MCAD and was told that they had a 180 day statute of limitations on filing charges. Lewis further claimed that the MCAD told her that the statute of limitations could be tolled by the fact that she had a grievance pending.

. | believed that | had to complete the Union grievance procedure before | could initiate a discrimination claim with Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. It was upon calling MCAD that | was informed of the 180 day statute of limitation as to filing a claim but was told by a staff member that my grievance case with MSCA may have tolled the statute of limitation requirement.

The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination has published a fact sheet to accompany M.G.L. c. 149 105D (EXHIBIT D). 5. On or about May 24, 2017, during a mediation session the Chelmsford School Committee (hereinafter the EMPLOYER) made a counterproposal (EXHIBIT E) that continues to be in conflict with M.G.L. c. 149 105D. 6.

The Appellants Section 43 Just Cause Appeal was dismissed with a future effective date, pending the outcome of his complaint filed with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) and the appeal of his disability retirement appeal now pending with the Contributory Retirement Appeals Board (CRAB).

The Town further advised that requested records are related to the pending matter before the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, Charlotte DiClemente v. Town of Natick, James Quilty, Cara Rossi, MCAD Docket No. 20BEM02451.

The Town further advised that requested records are related to the pending matter before the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, Charlotte DiClemente v. Town of Natick, James Quilty, Cara Rossi, MCAD Docket No. 20BEM02451. Based upon a telephone conference between a Public Records Division staff attorney and a Town representative, the Town confirmed that the requested records are the subject of the pending administrative matter.

Prior to any such limitation of appointment or promotion, the administrator shall submit in writing to the Massachusetts commission against discrimination [MCAD] a request for its recommendation on such proposed limitations.

A pre-hearing conference was conducted at the offices of the Civil Service Commission on April 21, 2005 at which time the parties reviewed the reasons for their request for 310 Relief, including a then-recently issued decision issued by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination involving the Appellants and the City of Melrose. The Commissioner who conducted the pre-hearing opted to schedule the matter for a full hearing.