Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005) 2 Analysis The undisputed facts establish that Mr. Gale resided in Holden, not Worcester, for the oneyear period prior to the date on which he took the 2014 Firefighter examination. He does not dispute this but, apparently, believed (erroneously) that his status as a resident of Worcester County, qualified him for the residency preference.
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005) ANALYSIS The undisputed facts, viewed in a light most favorable to Mr. Rosa, establish that New Bedfords letter dated March 3, 2020 erroneously stated that he was bypassed for appointment, when, in fact, he was not bypassed within the meaning of G.L.c.31,2(b) & G.L.c.31, 27.
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). ANALYSIS The undisputed facts, viewed in a light most favorable to the Appellant, establish that his place on Certification #08926 put him below any of the candidates who were selected for appointment. In particular, the lowest ranked candidate appointed was in a tie group in the 64th position and the Appellant was in a lower ranked tie group in the 70th position, ranked below that candidate.
Reese has no reasonable expectation of prevailing on at least one essential element of the case, and that he has not produced sufficient specific Parole Board, facts to rebut this conclusion. 18 MCSR See, e.g., Lydon_v. Massachusetts 216 (2005). cf. Milliken & Co., v. Duro Textiles LLC, 451 Mass. 547, 550n (2008); Maimonides School v, Coles, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 240, 249 (2008).
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). Analysis / Conclusion The Appellant is not an aggrieved person under the civil service law. Regardless of the results of his language proficiency examination, he was not eligible for appointment under the 2N+1 formula. Thus, there has been no actual harm to his employment status.
Kearney has not produced sufficient specific Massachusetts Parole Board, facts to rebut this conclusion. See, e.g., Lydon v. 18 MCSR 216 (2005). cf. Milliken & Co., v. Duro Textiles LLC, 451 Mass. 547, 550n.6, 887 N.E.2d 244, 250 (2008); Maimonides School v. Coles 71 Mass. App.Ct. 240, 249, 881 N.E.2d 778, 786-87 (2008).
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). cf. Milliken & Co., v. Duro Textiles LLC, 451 Mass. 547, 550n.6, (2008); Maimonides School v. Coles, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 240, 249, (2008). See also Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Company, 451 Mass. 623, 635-36, (2008) (discussing standard for deciding motions to dismiss); cf. R.J.A. v.
Massachusetts Parole Board, 14 MCSR 154 (2001), the Commission found that where the Appellant received the same score as two of the appointed individuals and a higher score than a third appointed individual, [t]he Appointing Authority need only provide its written statement to [HRD] as to its reasons for appointing [the third individual] over the Appellant since the Appellants score was the same as the other two.