K.A.V., 406 Mass. 698, 550 N.E.2d 376 (1990) (factual issues bearing on plaintiffs standing required denial of motion to dismiss) Relevant Civil Service Law The statutes upon which the Appellants rely include Sections 39 and 40 of Chapter 31, and PAR.15 of the Personnel Administration Rules promulgated by the Massachusetts Human Resources Division, pursuant to Sections 3 & 4 of Chapter 31.

Bowman DECISION Filing of the Appeals / Pre-Hearing Pursuant to the provisions of G.L. c. 30, s. 49, the Appellants, all of whom are classified as Review Examiner IIs (RE IIs) at the Department of Transitional Assistance 1 (DTA), an agency within the Executive Office of Health and Human Services (HHS), filed timely appeals with the Civil Service Commission (Commission), contesting the decision of the states Human Resources Division (HRD) to affirm

It advised him that he could appeal the decision to the Human Resources Division (HRD). (App. Ex. 3, p. 45) 15. HRD received Mr. Driscolls classification appeal on June 9, 2021 and denied it on August 20, 2021, stating, We concur with the agencys recommendation that [your] dutiesare more appropriately classified as a Civil Engineer V.9 HRD advised Mr. Driscoll that he could appeal its decision to the Commission. (App. Ex. 3, p. 47) 16.

. | The plaintiff appealed the denial of his reclassification request to the Human Resources Division of the Commonwealth (HRD). In June 2017, HRD informed the plaintiff that it concurred with EEAs decision that his duties fell within the specifications ofa FPS II, and therefore his appeal was denied. /d. at 538. The plaintiff promptly appealed HRDs decision to the Commission.

Murray or Appellant) filed the instant appeal at the Civil Service Commission (Commission) on August 23, 2017, under G.L. c. 30, s. 49, challenging the decision of the states Human Resources Division (HRD) and the state Department of Correction (DOC or Respondent) to deny his request for reclassification from Correctional Program Officer (CPO)-C to CPO-D.

Ittleman DECISION On May 19, 2019, the Appellant, Melissa Paglia-Hurley (Appellant), pursuant to G.L. c. 30, 49, filed an appeal with the Civil Service Commission (Commission) contesting the decision of the states Human Resources Division (HRD) to deny her request for reclassification from a Compliance Officer III position (CO III) to a Program Coordinator III position (PC III) at the Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission. (MRC).

DECISION On March 2, 2021, the Appellant, Larraine Pope, filed an appeal with the Civil Service Commission (Commission) pursuant to G.L. c. 30, 49,1 contesting the decision of the states Human Resources Division (HRD) to uphold the decision of the Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR) to deny her request for reclassification from her current title of Program Coordinator II (PC-II) to the title of Program Coordinator III (PC-III).

EO 595 required the states Human Resources Division (HRD) to develop a policy to implement this mandate with said policy to include the following elements that are relevant to this appeal: a requirement that all executive department employees demonstrate no later than October 17, 2021 to their employing agency that they have received COVID-19 vaccination and, going forward, that they demonstrate they are maintaining full COVID-19 vaccination; a procedure

On June 21, 2021, the Appellant took and passed the entry-level civil service examination for municipal police officer administered by the Massachusetts Human Resources Division (HRD). His name was placed on the eligible list established on September 1, 2021 as a qualified disabled veteran eligible for residency preference in Everett. (Stipulated Facts; Administrative Notice [HRD email to Commission dated 4/8/2022]) 5.

The states Human Resource Division (HRD) issued certification 04301 to the Respondent on January 24, 2017 and informed candidates listed thereon to sign the certification at the LPD. Sixty-one (61) candidates, including the Appellant, signed certification 04301. The Appellant was ranked thirty-second (32nd) among the candidates who signed the certification. (R.Ex. 5) 5. The Appellant completed an application for employment.