Town of Brookline, 53 Mass. App. Ct. 120, 125 (2001). Here, the Respondent has sustained its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that there was just cause for laying off the Appellant for lack of funds. The evidence presented and the testimony of Mr. Distaso clearly showed that the Respondents financial condition had significantly deteriorated from FY 05 to FY 07.

Town of Brookline, 20 MCSR 24 (2007) (poor interview performance can stand alone as the sole basis for bypass where there is no evidence of any inappropriate motivations on the part of the Appointing Authority). 12 As referenced above, the Town chose to conduct interviews of the respective candidates. The authority to interview candidates is inherent in G.L. c. 31 25. Flynn v. Civ. Serv. Commn, 15 Mass. App. Ct. 206, 208 (1983).

(emphasis added) See also Town of Brookline v. Alston, 487 Mass. 278 (2021) (analyzing broad scope of the Commissions jurisdiction to enforce basic merit principles under civil service law).

Id; see also Town of Brookline v. Alston, 487 Mass. 278 (2021) (analyzing broad scope of the Commissions jurisdiction to enforce basic merit principles under civil service law). Yet, even if the appointing authority did not meet the burden of proof for bypass on every reason given, its discretion must 13 be upheld if any reason is sufficient, standing alone, to justify the bypass. See Porter v.

See 10 also Town of Brookline v. Alston, 487 Mass. 278 (2021) (analyzing broad scope of the Commissions jurisdiction to enforce basic merit principles under civil service law).

Town of Brookline, 20 MCSR 24 (2007) (poor interview performance can stand alone as the sole basis for bypass where there is no evidence of any inappropriate motivations on the part of the Appointing Authority.4 Conclusion For these reasons, the Citys decision to bypass the Appellant for the promotion to Captain is affirmed and Lt. Sheehans appeal under Docket No.

Town of Brookline, 32 MCSR 37 (2019) cited by the Appellant. The Alston appeal involved the discharge of a tenured firefighter after he failed to return to work following years of suffering from multiple incidents of harassment and retaliation at the hands of his fellow firefighters and superior officers that made it impossible for him to return to duty.

Should the Appellant seek to revoke this dismissal at that time, the Commission will weigh MCADs decision appropriately while conducting further proceedings on the Appellants just-cause appeal, guided in part by the Supreme Judicial Courts framework outlined in Town of Brookline v. Alston, 487 Mass. 278 (2021).

Should the Appellant seek to revoke this dismissal at that time, the Commission will weigh MCADs decision appropriately while conducting further proceedings on the Appellants just-cause appeal, guided in part by the Supreme Judicial Courts framework outlined in Town of Brookline v. Alston, 487 Mass. 278 (2021).

Should the Appellant seek to revoke this dismissal at that time, the Commission will weigh MCADs decision appropriately while conducting further proceedings on the Appellants just-cause appeal, guided in part by the Supreme Judicial Courts framework outlined in Town of Brookline v. Alston, 487 Mass. 278 (2021).