City of Holyoke, 21 MCSR 94 (2008) (choosing from a group of tied candidate does not constitute a bypass); Coughlin v. Plymouth Police Dept, 19 MCSR 434 (2006) (Commission 7 . . . continues to believe that selection among a group of tied candidates is not a bypass under civil service law); Kallas v.

City of Holyoke, 35 MLC 153, 156, MUP-05-4503 (January 9, 2009) (citing Town of Dracut, 25 MLC 131, 133, MUP-1397 (February 17, 1999)). In the charge and at the in-person investigation, McGowan argues that the Town took adverse action against him by placing him on paid administrative leave and requiring him to undergo a fitness for duty examination. McGowan expressed that the Towns conduct embarrassed him and destroyed his reputation.

City of Holyoke, 35 MLC 153, 156, MUP-05-4503 (January 9, 2009). Once the charging party establishes a prima facie case, if the employer provides lawful reasons for the alleged discriminatory conduct, the charging party must then prove that but for the protected activity, the employer would not have taken the adverse action. Mass. 559, 565-566 (1981).

City of Holyoke, 35 MLC 153, 156, MUP-05-4503 (January 9, 2009). Once the charging party establishes a prima facie case, if the employer provides lawful reasons for the alleged discriminatory conduct, the charging party must then prove that but for the protected activity, the employer would not have taken the adverse action. Trustees of Forbes Library, 384 Mass. 559, 565-566 (1981).

City of Holyoke, 74 Mass.App.Ct. 1128 n.2 (2009) (Rule 1:28); see also G.L. c. 31, 42, 3 (The supreme judicial court or the superior court shall have jurisdiction over any civil action for the reinstatement of any person alleged to have been illegally discharged . . .

I held a remote pre-hearing conference on July 5, 2023, at which the Appellant, counsel for HRD, and counsel for the City of Holyoke appeared.

City of Holyoke, 35 MLC 153, 156, MUP-05-4503 (January 9, 2009).4 The CERB has decided that an employees activity is protected if it focuses on generally applicable terms and conditions of employment that impact the collective bargaining unit as a whole. City of Boston, 8 MLC 1872, 1875, MUP-3994 (February 25, 1982); Town of Shrewsbury, 5 MLC 1519, 1523, MUP-2999 (December 22, 1978).

City of Holyoke, 35 MLC 153, 156, MUP-05-4503 (January 9, 2009) (citing Town of Dracut, 25 MLC 131, 133, MUP-1397 (February 17, 1999)). Many management decisions, though inconvenient or undesirable, do not constitute adverse employment actions unless the charging party is materially disadvantaged in some way. See City of Boston, 35 MLC 289, 291, MUP-04-4077 (May 20, 2009)(citing MacCormack v.

City of Holyoke, 35 MLC 153, 156, MUP-05-4503 (Jan. 9, 2009); Town of Carver, 35 MLC 29, 47, MUP-03- 3094 (June 30, 2008); Quincy School Committee, 27 MLC 83, 92, MUP-1986 (Dec. 29, 2000); Town of Clinton, 12 MLC 1361, 1365, MUP-5659 (Nov. 9, 1985), Letter of Dismissal (cont'd) MUP-14-4199 (citing Trustees of Forbes Library v.

City of Holyoke, 35 MLC 153, 156 (2009). To establish a prima facie case the Charging Party must show that: (1) The employee engaged in concerted activity protected by section 2 of the Law; (2) the employer knew of the concerted, protected activity (3) the employer took adverse action against the employee; and (4) the employers action was motivated by a desire to penalize or discourage the protected activity.