Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). See also Mangino v. HRD, 27 MCSR 34 (2014) and cases cited (The notion underlying the summary decision process in administrative proceedings parallels the civil practice under Mass. R. Civ. P. 56, namely, when no genuine issues of material fact exist, the agency is not required to conduct a meaningless hearing.); Morehouse v.
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). Applicable Civil Service Law G.L. c. 31, s. 2(b) authorizes appeals to the Commission by persons aggrieved by certain actions or inactions by the Massachusetts Human Resources Division (HRD) or, in certain cases by appointing authorities to whom HRD has delegated its authority, and which actions have abridged their rights under civil service laws.
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). Accord 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) Relevant Civil Service Law Boston gives preference to candidates for civil service positions who have maintained a Boston residence, as authorized by Mass.
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005) The notion underlying the summary decision process in administrative proceedings parallels the civil practice under Mass.R.Civ.P.56, namely, when no genuine issues of material fact exist, the agency is not required to conduct a meaningless hearing. See Catlin v. Board of Registration of Architects, 414 Mass. 1, 7 (1992); Massachusetts Outdoor Advertising Counsel v.
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). See also Mangino v. HRD, 27 MCSR 34 (2014) and cases cited (The notion underlying the summary decision process in administrative proceedings parallels the civil practice under Mass.R.Civ.P.56, namely, when no genuine issues of material fact exist, the agency is not required to conduct a meaningless hearing.); Morehouse v.
Massachusetts 5 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). See also Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Company, 451 Mass. 623, 635-36, 888 N.E.2d 879, 889-90 (2008) (discussing standard for deciding motions to dismiss); cf. R.J.A. v.
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005) The likelihood that an appeal would not survive a motion for summary decision as a matter of law is a factor that an Appointing Authority may fairly raise in opposition to a motion to reopen, and it is one that the Commission may properly consider in deciding 7 whether or not reopening an appeal would be a futility. See Dawson v. Department of Correction, 26 MCSR 132 (2012), citing Sunderland v.
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005) 7 APPLICABLE CIVIL SERVICE LAW A tenured civil service employee may be discharged for just cause after due notice and hearing upon written decision which shall state fully and specifically the reasons therefore. G.L.c.31,41.