Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 371 Mass. 130, 136 11 (1976)). In Trustees of Forbes Library, 384 Mass. at 566, the Court illustrated this point 12 as follows: 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 For example, an employer might assert that it had fired an employee because it believed the employee had broken rules.

Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 431 Mass. The City did not argue that its decision to deny Babcocks request to fill the Sergeant Specialist position was not an adverse action under the Law. 41 26 H.O. Decision (Contd) MUP-18-6946 & MUP-19-7379 1 655, 667 (2000) (quoting Johansen v. NCR Comten, Inc., 30 Mass. App.

Post Non-Renewal On May 10, 2011, Smiths counsel sent Superintendent Malone a letter detailing Smiths experience at the Raymond School and the High School and advising him that Smith would file charges of unlawful discrimination with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and Massachusetts Superior Court, as well as unfair labor practice complaints and lawsuits, unless the School

STEP 12 - Remarks section is used when an Appointing Authority requests the use of The protected group for which the certification is requested must be as either minorities or females, and an approved affirmative action be on file at the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. This PAR. 10. specified clan must of the requisition Department of Personnel A copy a o. ae.

Additionally, in accordance with Article 24 Section 2B of this Agreement, an employee who chooses to pursue a claim in court, at the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or some other administrative forum, may not also utilize the grievance and arbitration procedure contained in Article 24 of this Agreement. 15 ARTICLE 8 WORKWEEK AND WORK SCHEDULE Section 1.

Additionally, as Exhibit 197 indicates, for both years 10 It appears that the Springfield plaintiffs did not timely file a necessary pre-suit claim with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination with respect to the eligibility list from the 2005 exam, and therefore have no viable claims regarding that exam. 22 Case 1:07-cv-11693-GAO Document 347 Filed 09/05/14 Page 23 of 47 there was a substantial possibility of a false positive adverse

Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination ("MCAD") Boston Office: One Ashburton Place Rm. 601 Boston, MA 02108 (617) 727-3990 Springfield Office: 424 Dwight Street Rm. 220 Springfield, MA 01103 (413) 739-2145 The Office For Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education (OCR) Department of Education John W. McCormack Post Office and Courthouse Room 222 Boston, MA 02109 (617) 223-9662 II.

Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 431 22 Mass. H.O. Decision (cont'd) SUP-12-2282 SUPL-12-2283 655, 667 (2000) (citing Johansen v. NCR (1991)). Comten, Inc., 30 Mass. App. Ct. 294. 300 Stray remarks in the workplace, statements by people without the power to make employment decisions, and statements made by decision makers unrelated to the decisional process itself do not suffice to satisfy a charging party's threshold burden.

Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 431 Mass. 22 SUP-12-2282 SUPL-12-2283 H.O. Decision (cont'd) 655, 667 (2000) (citing Johansen v. NCR Comten, Inc., 30 Mass. App.

Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 431 Mass. 22 Add.23 H.O. Decision (cont'd) SUP-12-2282 SUPL-12-2283 655, 667 (2000) (citing Johansen v. NCR Comten, (1991)). Inc., 30 Mass. App.

Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 371 Mass. 130, 136 11 (1976)). In Trustees of Forbes Library, 384 Mass. at 566, the Court illustrated this point 12 as follows: 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 For example, an employer might assert that it had fired an employee because it believed the employee had broken rules.

Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 431 Mass. The City did not argue that its decision to deny Babcocks request to fill the Sergeant Specialist position was not an adverse action under the Law. 41 26 H.O. Decision (Contd) MUP-18-6946 & MUP-19-7379 1 655, 667 (2000) (quoting Johansen v. NCR Comten, Inc., 30 Mass. App.

Health Department of Mental Health Department of Mental Health Department of Mental Health Department of Mental Health Department of Mental Health Department of Mental Health Department of Mental Health Department of Mental Health Department of Mental Health Department of Mental Health Department of Mental Health Department of Mental Health Department of Mental Health Department of Mental Health Department of Mental Health Department of Mental Health Commission

However, because prohibited practice charges are analyzed on the merits using the paradigm developed in Massachusetts discrimination case law, the probable cause standard utilized by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination is instructive. Forbes Library v. Labor Relations Commn, 384 Mass. 559, 561-62 (1981).