Sharma's petition for appeal, he indicates that "[tlhis information is already shared in the [identified individual] affidavit shared by [the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination] which is a public record." Mr. Sharma is advised that the exemption for "personnel [file] or information" is not dependent upon whether the same information may be available, or discernible, through alternative sources.

Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 384 Mass. 198,206 (1981) (administrative agency entitled deference in the interpretation of its own regulations). Documents are not voluntarily submitted, but rather are submitted pursuant to an order by this office that an in camera inspection is necessary to make a proper finding. Documents are submitted for the limited purpose of review.

Seferiadis informed this office that his specific request for applicant employment qualifications for the individuals that the MBTA interviewed pertains to a case involving the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD). The Public Records Law does not distinguish between individuals seeking public records. Mr.

The City claims the "investigation file" of the identified individual, which includes a copy of the original complaint and a copy of a document produced by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) are "absolutely exempt" as personnel information because the City indicates they were useful in making employment decisions.

Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 450 Mass, 327, 343-344 (2008); Cohen v. Board of Registration in Pharmacy, 350 Mass. 246, 253 (1966), However, the job of a supervisory police officer has extraordinary responsibilities, including managing officers whose lives are sometimes at risk.

Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 384 Mass. 198,206 (1981) (administrative agency entitled deference in the interpretation of its own regulations).

In its October 7th response, the Department indicates that there is currently pending litigation relating to this request, and in a phone conversation with this office on October 18, 2022, the Department stated that the records requested in this appeal are at issue in at least one case pending before the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD).

Here, although the Officers report contained no explicit threats to file a claim with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) or in federal court, it did contain several allegations of harassment and retaliation.

Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 384 Mass. 198, 206 (1981) (administrative agency entitled deference in the interpretation of its own regulations). Records are not voluntarily submitted, but rather are submitted pursuant to an order by this office that an in camera inspection is necessary to make a proper finding. Records are submitted for the limited purpose of review.

The Town cites to "Chapter 278 of the Acts of 1996" and asserts that it "required the [Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD)] to adopt a model sexual harassment policy for cities and towns and MGL c l51B (sections 2 and 3) that authorize the MCAD to implement policies and rules that assist in goals of 151B."