See OML Declination 2-14-2025 (Freetown-Lakeville Regional School Committee); OML 2018-91 (explaining that gender-based harassment complaints should be filed with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination); OML 2019-166 (explaining that [a]n allegation of unprofessional conduct or incivility towards a member of the Commission or the public does not constitute a violation of the Open Meeting Law).

Other Union Activity of December 2017 May 28, 2018 As stated, I filed four complaints against my employer UMass at the Massachusetts Commission against Discrimination. July 5,2017_ The MCAD issued a Probable Cause Finding on the four cases against my employer UMass. October 19, 2017 I write to Mr.

paperwork. 2 Dismissal (cont'd) SUPL-18-6661 Director of Development in the College of Natural Sciences to the position of Regional Director of Development in the Office of the Vice Chancellor of Development and Alumni Relations (Development Department).5 Subsequently, Hastings requested legal representation from the Association to review the transfer, and requested advice and assistance from the Association in filing a claim with the Massachusetts Commission

For example, we have found that a public body properly met in executive session under Purpose 3 to discuss strategy with respect to adjudicatory hearings before the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and the Architectural Access Board [b]ecause MCAD and AAB adjudicatory hearing procedures closely resemble traditional litigation, [and therefore] the matters being adjudicated by these entities are considered pending litigation.

In 1998, Malvina Monteiro filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination against her employer, the City of Cambridge, alleging retaliation for raising concerns about discrimination. Monteiro subsequently filed an action in Superior Court alleging discrimination based on race and national origin, as well as retaliation.

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 inspection.

Forrests personal attorney, whom she had hired in connection with a Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) case against the Town and Fire Chief Leary, was not involved with the Towns disciplinary hearing or the related negotiations. (Testimony of Forrest). Ms.

In a sworn statement to the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, the City acknowledged Ms. Harveys reemployment rights stating: Under G.L. c. 31, 40, when a permanent employee resigns for reasons of illness and later recovers, his name shall be placed on [a reemployment] list upon his request made in writing to the administrator [of the state Human Resources Division within two years from the date 5 of such resignation.

Easys attorney sent the Committees attorney a draft of a complaint to the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) against the Committee and the Town. Thereafter, the Committee posted notice for a meeting to be held on January 25.

.); OML 2024-168 (clarifying that with respect to complaints before the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, a public body may, out of concern for the privacy of the complainant, withhold the complainants identity while still identifying the type of litigation matter to be discussed). 7 While we generally defer to a public bodys assessment of whether the inclusion of such information would compromise the purpose for an executive session

L. c. 151B (at the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, or MCAD). 23. Shortly after, by letters dated May 20, 2022, DDS ordered both Kagacha and Tingle to show cause as to why they should not be disciplined at an DocuSign Envelope ID: EE1DFE71-CCC9-446F-8636-86E3E8F38D59 internal DDS hearing on June 7, 2022.

L. c. 151B (at the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, or MCAD). 23. Shortly after, by letters dated May 20, 2022, DDS ordered both Kagacha and Tingle to show cause as to why they should not be disciplined at an internal DDS hearing on June 7, 2022.

On June 6, 2022 Tingle and Kagacha filed complaints of racial discrimination and retaliation at the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD). Tingle and Kagacha were represented by the Union for the June 7, 2022 internal proceeding. Evie Arroyo-Barrows, Labor Relations Specialist, was the designated hearing officer. On June 28, 2022, the Commonwealth terminated Tingle and Kagacha.