Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005) Parties Arguments HRD makes the same argument here that it did in Pelizzaro, arguing that, even if, after review, 14 of the 80 test questions were effectively removed from the examination because those questions were not referenced in the reading list, the Appellant cannot show that this promotional examination was not a fair test of his abilities to perform the duties of a Fire Captain.
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). cf. Milliken & Co., v. Duro Textiles LLC, 451 Mass. 547, 550n.6, (2008); Maimonides School v. Coles, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 240, 249, (2008). See also Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Company, 451 Mass. 623, 635 36, (2008) (discussing standard for deciding motions to dismiss); cf. R.J.A. v. K.A.V., 406 Mass. 698 (1990) (factual issues bearing on plaintiffs standing required denial of motion to dismiss).
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). Analysis The undisputed fact here is that, at no time while the Appellants name was ranked first on the eligible list for police sergeant, was there a permanent, full-time vacancy for police sergeant, nor was such position filled on a temporary or acting basis. Rather, according to the Appellant there may have been a vacancy before the eligible list expired if the City and Sgt.
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005) 11. Applicable Civil Service Law G.L. c. 31, s. 16 authorizes the HRD (under the Personnel Administrator) to conduct examinations for employment, providing HRD considerable discretion in that regard. Under section 25 of Chapter 31, HRD creates a list of candidates who have passed a civil service exam.
Comm) Unlike the defendant in Massachusetts Parole Board v. Civil Service , 47 Mass, App. Ct. 760, 766 (1999), who failed to appear at an investigatory interview, Dykas attended and answered questions with the BOPS regarding his alleged misconduct. Ag the Civil Service Commission noted in its decision, the city could have extended the BOPS investigation and required further testimony from Dykas in that connection.
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). cf. Milliken & Co., v. Duro Textiles LLC, 451 Mass. 547, 550 (2008); Maimonides School v. Coles, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 240, 249 (2008). Based on the parties motions, as well as their oral arguments, it is evident that the parties are in general agreement as to the facts of this case.
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). cf. Milliken & Co., v. Duro Textiles LLC, 451 Mass. 547, 550n (2008); Maimonides School v. Coles, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 240, 249 (2008). Specifically, this motion to dismiss must be allowed unless Mr. Fiore raises above the speculative level sufficient facts plausibly suggesting that the Commission has statutory jurisdiction and the appeal was timely under applicable civil service law and rules.
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005); cf. Milliken & Co., v. Duro Textiles LLC, 451 Mass. 547, 550n.6, 887 N.E.2d 244, 250 (2008); Maimonides School v. Coles, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 240, 249, 881 N.E.2d 778, 786-87 (2008) Specifically, this motion to dismiss must allowed when the Appellant fails to raise above the speculative level sufficient facts plausibly suggesting that Mr.