authorized union representative as defined above or the President of ASFCME Local 2824 shail be permitted reasonable time off without loss of pay to: represent employees upon their request at interview which may lead to disciplinary action on the premises of the DPW or other mutually agreeable site; represent grievants at a hearing on the premises of the DPW or other mutually agreeable site; at arbitration, Labor Relations Commission or Massachusetts Commission

Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 431 Mass. 655 (2000); Town of 13 Dennis, 29 MLC 79, 83, MUP-01-2976 (October 10, 2002). Direct evidence is evidence 14 that, "if believed, results in an inescapable, or at least highly probable, inference that a 15 forbidden bias was present in the workplace." Wynn & Wynn, 431 Mass. at 667 (citing 16 Johansen v. NCR Comten, Inc., 30 Mass. App. Ct. 294, 300 (1991)).

the meeting was to stop Egloff from becoming Fire Chief. 15 The City argues that everyone in the Department knew that Egloff was going to become 67 As the February 2018 letter was unsigned, I do not make a finding as to whether the letter constituted concerted, protected activity. 68 The Charging Parties argued that Boutin, Kennedy, and Miltimore engaged in concerted, protected activity when they respectively filed a charge with the Massachusetts Commission

Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 431 Mass. 655 (2000); Town of 13 Dennis, 29 MLC 79, 83, MUP-01-2976 (October 10, 2002). Direct evidence is evidence 14 that, "if believed, results in an inescapable, or at least highly probable, inference that a 15 forbidden bias was present in the workplace." Wynn & Wynn, 431 Mass. at 667 (citing 16 Johansen v. NCR Comten, Inc., 30 Mass. App. Ct. 294, 300 (1991)).

the meeting was to stop Egloff from becoming Fire Chief. 15 The City argues that everyone in the Department knew that Egloff was going to become 67 As the February 2018 letter was unsigned, I do not make a finding as to whether the letter constituted concerted, protected activity. 68 The Charging Parties argued that Boutin, Kennedy, and Miltimore engaged in concerted, protected activity when they respectively filed a charge with the Massachusetts Commission

Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 431 Mass. 655 (2000); Town of 13 Dennis, 29 MLC 79, 83, MUP-01-2976 (October 10, 2002). Direct evidence is evidence 14 that, "if believed, results in an inescapable, or at least highly probable, inference that a 15 forbidden bias was present in the workplace." Wynn & Wynn, 431 Mass. at 667 (citing 16 Johansen v. NCR Comten, Inc., 30 Mass. App. Ct. 294, 300 (1991)).

the meeting was to stop Egloff from becoming Fire Chief. 15 The City argues that everyone in the Department knew that Egloff was going to become 67 As the February 2018 letter was unsigned, I do not make a finding as to whether the letter constituted concerted, protected activity. 68 The Charging Parties argued that Boutin, Kennedy, and Miltimore engaged in concerted, protected activity when they respectively filed a charge with the Massachusetts Commission

Allwaters Vali Buland First Assistant City Solicitor CITY OF CAMBRIDGE Office of the City Solicitor 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 SuwJin Han Compliance Officer I Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination One Ashburton Place, Rm 601 Boston, MA 02108 (617) 944-6076 Re: | MCAD Docket No. 12BEM00420 Patricia Lewis v.

The United States Equal = 10" Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Floor Boston, MA 02114 The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD") Boston Office: One Ashburton Place, Suite 601, Boston, MA 02108 (617) 727-3990 Springfield Office: 424 Dwight Street - Room 220, Springfield, MA 01103 (413) 739-2145 (added 2/7/97) 16-4

Wall, supra (decision by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination precluded relitigation); Martin v. Ring, supra (decision of Industrial Accident Board given preclusive effect in subsequent tort action) and Restatement (Second) of Judgments, Section 83 (1982).

Officer Shorey filed three (3) claims at the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) against the City of Leominster between 2009 and 2013. On October 31, 2012, the MCAD found that one of the claims was supported by probable cause and the case regarding that claim remains open. The MCAD did not find probable cause to support the two (2) other claims filed by Officer Shorey.

A & B) Following this incident, Firefighter Alstons relationship with his fellow BFD co-workers started to deteriorate, eventually leading to his complaints of racial discrimination, harassment and retaliation against the BFD and Brookline, initially through internal grievances in July 2010 and later in the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) in 2012, and lawsuits in Massachusetts and federal courts. (MDS, Exhs.

Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) in July 2014 alleging that the city of Lawrence, the LPD and certain members of the LPD discriminated against him, in part, when they disciplined him in regard to certain matters. In April 2017, MCAD issued a ruling finding that the complaint lacked probable cause, which finding Mr. Green could then appeal.