Department of Correction, 27 MCSR 471 (2014) (unanimously concluding that DOC failed to show a nexus between the Appellants criminal conduct from 20 years prior and his current ability to perform 10 the duties of a Correction Officer); Stylien v. Boston Police Dept, 31 MCSR 154, 209 (2018) (overturning bypass based on a lack of evidence, and consequent failure to indicate a pattern of criminal behavior or poor driving habits).

The Appellant has been employed by the Massachusetts Department of Correction (hereinafter the DOC) since 1998. He had the fifth highest score on Certification List No. 231084 issued by the Human Resources Division (hereinafter the HRD) on November 25, 2003. The list was intended for the appointment of ten (10) permanent intermittent police officers and was valid for a period of twelve (12) weeks. (Testimony of the Appellant and Exhibit 1) 2.

Ironically, Bliss, like the Appellant, was also employed by the Department of Correction before coming to the Parole Board. Valentgas, Bliss and Thomas all testified that they harbored no bias against the Appellant nor did they harbor any bias in favor of any other candidates. The Appellant appeared nervous during his interview, with difficulty formulating and articulating answers.

Department of Correction, 13 MCSR 159 (2000) (Commission upholds bypass where applicants answers to situational scenarios did not comply with department policies and procedures and failed to demonstrate an ability to lead); McMahon v. Town of Brookline, 20 MCSR 24 (2007) (poor interview performance can stand alone as the sole basis for bypass where there is no evidence of any inappropriate motivations on the part of the Appointing Authority).

Department of Correction, 19 MCSR 211 (2006) (discharge; 42 appeal denied); Fopiano v. Scituate, 12 MCSR 154 (1999) discharge; 42 appeal denied); Dodge v. Athol Police Dept, 11 MSCR 207 (1998) (discharge; 42 appeal denied); Carey v. Nahant, 6 MCSR 149 (1993) (discharge; 42 appeal denied).

Department of Correction, 16 MCSR 54 (2003), affd sub nom, Pimental v. Civil Service Commn, Suffolk Superior Civ. No. SUCV2003-5908 (June 6, 2005); McDonald v. Boston Public Works, 14 MCSR 60 (2001); Sheehan v. Worcester, 11 MCSR 100 (1998); Brindle v. Taunton, 7 MCSR 112 (1994); Tomasian v. Boston Police Dept, 6 MCSR 221 (1993).

This directive shall be effective June 1, 2020 until further notice and may be distributed = to police departments, sheriff departments, the Department of Correction and other -, agencies who may transport detainees to the court.

Trustees of Forbes Library, 384 Mass. 559, 565-566 (1981); Commonwealth of Massachusetts/Department of Correction, 14 MLC 1743, 11747, SUP-3081 (May 19, 1988). It is undisputed that Gray engaged in protected concerted activity and that the Employer was aware of her activities. Unlawful Motivation To support a claim of unlawful motivation, a charging party may proffer direct or indirect evidence of discrimination.

Department of Correction, 30 MCSR 287, clarified, 30 MCSR 404x (2017) (invalidating prospective waiver of civil service employees disciplinary hearing and appeal rights of civil service employee); Kenney v.

Additionally, Cutter reviewed a verbal altercation with a member of the Plymouth Sheriff's Department of Corrections in 2015, where Araujo and the other officer were frustrated with each other after Plymouth held up Araujos prisoner transport late in the evening.