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 5 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). 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). cf. Milliken & Co., v. Duro Textiles LLC, 451 Mass. 547, 550n.6, 887 N.E.2d 244, 250 (2008); Maimonides 881 N.E.2d 778, 786-87 (2008). See also School v. Coles, 71 Mass.App.Ct. Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Company, 240, 249, 451 Mass. 623, 635-36, 888 N.E.2d 879, 889-90 (2008) (discussing standard for deciding motions to dismiss); ef. R.J.A. v.
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005) Applicable Civil Service Law for Appeals The core mission of Massachusetts civil service law is to enforce basic merit principles for recruiting, selecting and advancing of employees on the basis of their relative ability, knowledge and skills and assuring that all employees are protected against coercion for political purposes, and are protected from arbitrary and capricious actions. G.L.c.31, 1.
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005) Analysis G.L.c.31,41 prescribes that an appointing authority may abolish the position of a tenured civil service employee who holds permanency in a civil service position only for just cause and after prior notice of the reasons for the decision and opportunity for a hearing before the appointing authority, with further right of appeal to the Commission, to contest the reasons as unjustified.
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005) 5 Applicable Civil Service Law [P]ermanent employees . . . having the same title in a departmental unit are to be separated . . . because of lack of work or lack of money or abolition of positions . . . according to their seniority . . . so that employees senior in length of service, computed in accordance with section thirty-three, shall be retained the longest. . . .
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). cf. Milliken & Co., v. Duro Textiles LLC, 451 Mass. 547, 550n.6, (2008); Maimonides 249, Iannacchino_v. Ford School v. Coles, 71 Mass.App.Ct. Motor Company, 451 Mass. 240, 623, 635-36, standard for deciding motions to dismiss); cf. R.J.A. v.