City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commn, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 300, 304, 682 N.E.2d 923, rev.den., 426 Mass. 1102, 687 N.E.2d 642 (1997). See also City of Leominster v. Stratton, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 726, 728, 792 N.E.2d 711, rev.den., 440 Mass. 1108, 799 N.E.2d 594 (2003); Police Department of Boston v. Collins, 48 Mass.App.Ct. 411, 721 N.E.2d 928, rev.den., 726 N.E.2d 417 (2000); McIsaac v.

Municipal Ct., 359 Mass. 211, 214 (1971); City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commn, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 300, 304, rev.den., 426 Mass. 1102 (1997); Selectmen of Wakefield v. Judge of First Dist. Ct., 262 Mass. 477, 482 (1928). The Commission determines justification for discipline by inquiring, "whether the employee has been guilty of substantial misconduct which adversely affects the public interest by impairing the efficiency of public service."

City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 304 (1997). An action is justified when it is done upon adequate reasons sufficiently supported by credible evidence, when weighed 11 by an unprejudiced mind; guided by common sense and by correct rules of law. Id. quoting Selectmen of Wakefield v. Judge of First Dist. Ct. of E. Middlesex, 262 Mass. 477, 482 (1928).

Civil Service Commn, 447 Mass. 814, 823 (inconsequential differences in facts found were insufficient to find appointing authoritys justification unreasonable); City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commn, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 300, 303-305, rev.den., 428 Mass. 1102 (1997) (same). See generally Villare v.

City of Cambridge v. Civil Serv. Commn., 43 Mass.App.Ct. 300, 304, rev. den., 426 Mass. 1102 (1997) (citing Murray v. Second Dist. Court of E. Middlesex, 389 Mass. 508, 514 (1983); Kelleher v. Personnel Admr. of the Dept. of 9 Personnel Admin., 421 Mass. 382, 387 (1995); Police Commr. of Bos. v. Civil Serv. Commn., 22 Mass.App.Ct. 364, 370, rev. den., 398 Mass. 1103 (1986)).

City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 300, 304 (1997). Reasonable justification means the Appointing Authority's actions were based on adequate reasons supported by credible evidence, when weighed by an unprejudiced mind, guided by common sense and by correct rules of law. Selectmen of Wakefield v. Judge of First Dist. Ct. of E. Middlesex, 262 Mass. 477, 482 (1928). Commissioners of Civil Service v.

City of Cambridge, 43 Mass.App.Ct. at 304-305. Such deference is especially appropriate with respect to the hiring of police officers. In light of the high standards to which police officers appropriately are held, appointing authorities are given significant latitude in screening police officer candidates. See, e.g., City of Beverly v. Civil Service Commn, 78 Mass.App.Ct. 182, 189, 190-191 (2010), citing Falmouth v. Civil Serv.

City of Cambridge v.

Id., citing, Whittier Regional School Committee, 13 MLC 1325, 1331-32 (1986), Upper Cape Cod Regional Vocational Technical School District Committee, 8 MLC 1366, 1367 (1981), and City of Cambridge, 7 MLC 2111 (1981).

Id., citing, Whittier Regional School Committee, 13 MLC 1325, 1331-32 (1986), Upper Cape Cod Regional Vocational Technical School District Committee, 8 MLC 1366, 1367 (1981), and City of Cambridge, 7 MLC 2111 (1981).

City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 303 (1997). It is well settled that reasonable justification requires that the Appointing Authoritys actions be based on adequate reasons supported by credible evidence, when weighed by an unprejudiced mind guided by common sense and correct rules of law. Selectmen of Wakefield v. Judge of First Dist. Ct. of E. Middlesex, 262 Mass. 477, 482 (1928).