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.
Corrigan MHC Department of State Police Sheriff's Dept Barnstable Sheriff's Dept Essex Sheriff's Dept Barnstable Sheriff's Department Suffolk Department of State Police Mass Rehabilitation Commission Sheriffs Department Plymouth Dept of Children and Families Sheriff's Dept Middlesex North Department of State Police Department of State Police Sheriff's Dept Middlesex North Sheriff's Department Suffolk DOC-Central Facility Account Parole Board Dept
Department Marlborough Police Department Marshfield Police Department Mashpee Police Department Mass General Brigham Salem Hospital Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Massachusetts College of Art Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences Massachusetts Environmental Police Massachusetts General Hospital Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Massachusetts Maritime Academy Massachusetts Parole
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005) Civil Service Law Governing Layoffs Section 39 of G.L.c.31 established the rights accorded to permanent employees who are targeted for layoff in a reduction in force due to lack of funds, as well as the procedures by which those employees must be reinstated to permanent employment.
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). 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) APPLICABLE CIVIL SERVICE LAW The Commissions jurisdiction over appeals by employees discharged, removed . . .
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005) Applicable Civil Service Law G.L.c.31,2(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 5 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) Applicable Civil Service Law The process for HRD review and appeal to the Commission to challenge the results of a civil service examination are contained in G.L.c.31, Sections 22 through 24 and follow a distinctly different statutory path from other forms of civil service appeals from HRD actions (or inactions).