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.

Brown agrees to withdraw all pending claims she has against BPS and/or the ' Boston School Committee, including but not limited to case number MUP 165476 and case number MUP 16-5617 before the Massachusetts Department of Labor Relations and case number 16BEM00720 before the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. TI.

Doherty, (2) any other employmentrelated proceeding brought in any forum, including but not limited to, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Massachusetts Department of Labor Relation and/or state or federal court; and/or (3) a future proceeding brought to enforce the terms of this Settlement Agreement. 14.

The Union and Otu-Wilkenson independently agree to withdraw, and to refrain from instituting, any legal, equitable, or administrative action in any forum, including but not limited to the Civil Service Commission, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or the parties grievance procedure relating to the facts and circumstances giving rise to SUP-21-8558, SUP-21-8753, and SUP-21-8926. 6.

Id., 447 Mass. at 808-810.3 2 One state agency that the legislature failed to include in the G.L.c.31, Section 61A consultative process for promulgating public safety employment regulations is the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination.

Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 431 Mass. 655, 667 (2000), (quoting Johansen v. NCR Comten, Inc., 30 Mass App. Ct. 294, 300 (1991)). Stray remarks in the workplace, statements by people without the power to make employment decisions, and statements made by decision makers unrelated to the decisional process itself do not suffice to satisfy a charging partys threshold burden. Id. at 667 (citing Price Waterhouse v.

Massachusetts Commission against Discrimination, 431 Mass. 655, 667 (2000) (citing Johansen v. NCR Comten, Inc. (Johansen), 30 Mass. App. Ct. 294, 300 (1991)).

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.

Cressman and the affidavit submitted to the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (hereinafter MCAD) which was entered into evidence in the instant matter1. In the final analysis, I find that the Appellant made several attempts to craft his answers relative to the negativity of his interview in the best possible light. In doing so, he sacrificed the credibility of his assertions needed to prevail in this decision.

The Appellant argues that the discipline rendered in this case was in retaliation of a complaint filed by the Appellant with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD). I conclude that this allegation is unfounded. As testified by Appellant Bailey, the issue which resulted in the MCAD complaint had been pending for a significant period of time.