City of Beverly v. Civil Service Commission, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 182, 190-191 Tristen Ortiz , : a . GI-12-251 Ss * CS-13-11 In order to prevail ona bypass case, the Appellant must demonstrate that the reasons offered by the Appointing Authority were untrue, apply equally to the chosen and bypassed ; candidate, are incapable of substantiation, or are a pretext for other, impermissible reasons. Borelli y. MBTA, G-1160, 1 MCSR 6, and cases cited. .

City of Beverly v. Civil Service Commn, 78 Mass.App.Ct. 182, 189, 190-191 (2010) citing Falmouth v. Civil Serv. Commn, 447 Mass. 824-826 (2006). The Commission owes substantial deference to the appointing authoritys exercise of judgment in determining whether there was reasonable justification shown. Such deference is especially appropriate with respect to the hiring of police officers.

See City of Beverly v. Civil Serv. Commn, 78 Mass.App.Ct. 182, 189 (2010). In its review, the commission is to find the facts 6 afresh, and in doing so, the commission is not limited to examining the evidence that was before the appointing authority. Id. at 187 (quoting City of Leominster v. Stratton, 58 Mass.App.Ct. 726, 728, rev. den., 440 Mass. 1108 (2003)). The commissions task, however, is not to be accomplished on a wholly blank slate.

City of Beverly v. Civil Service Commn, 78 Mass.App.Ct. 182, 189, 190-191 (2010) citing Falmouth v. Civil Serv. Commn, 447 Mass. 824-826 (2006). The Commission owes substantial deference to the appointing authoritys exercise of judgment in determining whether there was reasonable justification shown. Beverly citing Cambridge at 305, and cases cited.

City of Beverly v. Civil Service Commn, 78 Mass.App.Ct. 182, 189 190-191 (2010) citing Falmouth v. Civil Serv. Commn, 447 Mass. 824-826 (2006). The Commission owes substantial deference to the appointing authoritys exercise of judgment in determining whether there was reasonable justification shown. Beverly citing Cambridge at 305, and cases cited.

City of Beverly v. Civil Service Commission, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 182, 190-191 (2010). In order to prevail on a bypass case, the Appellant must demonstrate that the reasons offered by the Appointing Authority were untrue, apply equally to the bypassed and selected candidate, are incapable of substantiation, or are a pretext for other, impermissible reasons. Borelli v. MBTA, 1 MCSR 6.

See City of Beverly v. Civil Serv. Commn, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 182, 188, 189 (2010). When an applicant appeals an appointing authoritys decision to bypass him for a position, the appointing authority has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the reasons for the bypass are justified. G. L. c. 31, 2(b). The appointing authority must show a reasonable justification for its decision. Brackett v. Civil Serv.

Decision (cont'd) practice to refuse organizations MUP-10-5928 to bargain exclusive collectively representative. and Town in good faith of Wenham, with 23 MLC an employee 82, 83 (1996), citing City of Beverly, 20 MLC 1166, 1170 (1993).

City of Beverly v. Civil Service Commn., 78 Mass. App. Ct. 182, 189, 190-191 (2010), citing Falmouth at 824-826 (2006). The Commission owes substantial deference to the appointing authoritys exercise of judgment in determining whether there was reasonable justification shown. Beverly, citing Cambridge at 305, and cases cited.

City of Beverly v. Civil Service Commn, 78 Mass.App.Ct. 182, 189, 190-191 (2010) citing Falmouth v. Civil Serv. Commn, 447 Mass. 824-826 (2006); and ensuring that the appointing authority conducted an impartial and reasonably thorough review of the applicant. The Commission owes substantial deference to the appointing authoritys exercise of judgment in determining whether there was 6 reasonable justification shown.