shall be defined as an actual dispute arising as a result of the application or interpretation of one or more express terms of this agreement; provided, however, that any matter arising under the purported exercise of management right pursuant to Article II of this agreement, any matter reserved to the discretion of the Town by the terms of this agreement, or any matter presented to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or the Massachusetts Commission

will limit, segregate or classify employees in any way to deprive any individual sex, employee of employment opportunities because of race, color, religion, national origin or age. by Whenever any provisions of this Agreement refers to a matter which is covered ble antiChapterl150E as a prohibited (unfair labor) practice or any applica Relations discrimination law, where the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Labor state Commission, Massachusetts Commission

Whenever any provisions of this Agreement refers to a matter which is covered by Chapter 150E as a prohibited (unfair labor) practice or any applicable antidiscrimination law, where the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Labor Relations Commission, Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination or any other state or federal regulatory agency has or may have jurisdiction, all complaints or allegations of violations by the Town must be forward to such

MCAD - One Ashburton Place, Room 601, Boston, MA 02108 Carmen Zayas, Investigating Commissioner (617) 994-6024 (Fax) Daniel Sullivan Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination Daniel Sullivan, Vs. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Public Health Tewksbury State Hospital MCAD No: !

Daniel C Sullivan currently has a filed case with Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination [MCAD] Complaints filed against Tewksbury hospitals administration for age discrimination and retaliation. Debra Tosti CEO Tewksbury hospital William Kelleher Administrator of facilities Peter Schur Administrator of grounds/transportation. WORK HISTORY TEWKSBURY HOSPITAL MR. MANUEL PIMENTEL MR.

Alston filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) on May 24, 2012. He alleged that the town discriminated against him by promoting Pender after he used the racist slur and that the town handled the incident differently because of Alston's race.

Germains charge of discrimination filed with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) alleging racially disparate treatment by the Middlesex Sheriff along with the MCADs finding of lack of probable cause; and (d) Mr. St. Germains MSP and Brockton application packets. (Exh. 18) 21. Det. Mabee never met Mr. St. Germain. His employment and personal references were not checked.6 He was not granted an oral board interview.

Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 431 Mass. 655, 667 (2000) (citing Johansen v. NCR Comten, Inc. (Johansen), 30 Mass. App. Ct, 294, 300 (1991). Stray remarks in the workplace and statements made by a decisionmaker unrelated to the decisional process itself do not suffice to satisfy a charging partys threshold burden. Id. at 667 (citing Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 277 (1989). Here, Dr.

No. 09-4978-C (2014)) citing guidelines from the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD). Here, at least one member of the Roundtable (Mr. Mackenzie) has now accessed, and to some extent, reviewed the medical records of Mr. Morley. Further, the other members of the Roundtable have been provided with detailed information (via Mr. Mackenzies email) about Mr.

The provisions of G.L. c. 151B, s. 4(9), enforced by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, apply to inquiries about sealed records or juvenile offenses. See MCAD and Hanson v. Mass. Dept of Social Services, 28 MDLR 42, 43 (2006)(full MCAD decision affirming that juvenile offenses fall within G.L. c. 151B, s. 4(9). Civil service law indicates that certain persons may not be appointed to civil service positions.

He filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (hereinafter, MCAD) because he did not have the necessary technology for his work, and he named ONeill in his complaint. The MCAD charges were eventually dismissed and the Appellant testified that this was because the Department provided him with a reader. (Testimony of Appellant) 86. ONeill testified that he was not aware of being personally named in this complaint.