.: E-12-99 HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION, Respondent DECISION ON MOTION FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 310 OF THE ACTS OF 1993 Background On March 8, 2012, the Town of Billerica (Town), joined by Craig Grogan and John Harring1, filed a request with the Civil Service Commission (Commission), seeking relief under Chapter 310 of the Acts of 1993 (310 Relief) as a result of an action by the states Human Resources Division (HRD) to revoke an eligible list for

L.c. 30A, 14, against the Civil Service Commission (the Cormmission) and the Human Resources Division (the HRD) (collectively, the defendants}, appealing a surnmary decision the Commission issued, which upheld the HRDs revocation of the eligible list of candidates for promotion to the position of sergeant in the Towns Police Department. This matter is now before the court on the Towns Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings pursuant to Mass. R.

MASSACHUSETTS HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION Respondent B2-18-038 (Paiva) B2=18-039 (Finkle) B2-18-040 (Fegreus) BRENDAN HARTE, Appellant v. MASSACHUSETTS HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION and DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Respondents B2-18-044 (Harte) Appearances for Appellants: Victor Paiva, Scott Finkle, Brian Fegreus & Brendan Harte, Pro Se Appearances for HRD: Michael Downey, Esq. Melissa A. Thomson, Esq.

E-19-029 HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION & TOWN OF WINTHROP, Respondents Appearance for Appellant: Pro Se Giulio Bonavita Appearance for Human Resources Division: Patrick G. Butler, Esq. Human Resources Division 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 600 Boston, MA 02114 Appearance for Town of Winthrop: Howard L. Greenspan, Esq. 200 Broadway, Suite 304 Lynnfield, MA 01940 Commissioner: Christopher C. Bowman ORDER OF DISMISSAL 1.

E-18-188 E-18-195 CITY OF HAVERHILL & HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION, Respondents Appearance for Appellant: Stephen C. Pfaff, Esq. Louison, Costello, Condon & Pfaff, LLP 101 Summer Street Boston, MA 02110 Appearance for City of Haverhill: Timothy D. Zessin, Esq. KP Law 101 Arch Street 12th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Appearance for Human Resources Division: Melissa Thomson, Esq.

The human resources division (division) denied the request and McGunigle appealed to the Civil Service Commission (commission), which dismissed his appeal. After review in the Superior Court, a judge granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of the commission and the other defendants. appeals. McGunigle We affirm. Background. We briefly summarize the facts found by the hearing commissioner.

This matter is before the court on plaintiff Joseph McGunigles (McGunigle) motion for judgment on the pleadings arguing that defendant Civil Service Commissions (the t\jyh ^ ^ Commission) erred in its April 1 i, 2019, denial of his appeal of the Human Resource Divisions (HRD) denial of his request for a preferential position on the civil service employment eligibility list for the Quincy Fire Department.

E-21-222 CITY OF WORCESTER AND HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION, Respondents Appearance for Appellant: Pro Se Timothy OConnor Appearance for HRD: Sarah E. Petrie, Esq.1 Human Resources Division 100 Cambridge Street: Suite 600 Boston, MA 02104 Kimberly A. McMahon, Esq. City of Worcester 455 Main Street, Room 109 Worcester, MA 01608 Commissioner: Christopher C.

L.c. 30A, 14 to appeal a decision of the Civil Service Commission affirming a decision of the Massachusetts Human Resources Division (HRD) denying him two additional training and experience points on his police promotional Pleadings. exam. Presently before the court is DeFrancescos Motion for Judgment on the For the reasons set forth below, the decision of the Commission is affirmed, and the plaintiff's motion is DENTED. .

Following the exam, six out of the one hundred seventy-eight candidates who had taken it complained to the Human Resources Division ("the HRD") because the videotaped oral section of the exam included questions on Rule 200, a Boston Police Department Rule regarding critical incident management.2 Previously, a Boston Police Department memorandum informed the candidates that the written knowledge component of the exam would not cover Rule 200.