City of Cambridge v. Civil Serv. Commn, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 300, 304 (1997); Town of Watertown v. Arria, 16 Mass.App. Ct. 331, 334 (1983). Reasonable justification is established when such an action is done upon adequate reasons sufficiently supported by credible evidence, when weighed by an unprejudiced mind, guided by common sense and correct rules of law. Commrs of Civil Serv. v. Mun.

See City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 304 (1997). Justified in this context means done upon adequate reasons sufficiently supported by credible evidence, when weighed by an unprejudiced mind, guided by common sense and by correct rules of law. Id, at 304.

See City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 304 (1997). Justified in this context means done upon adequate reasons sufficiently supported by credible evidence, when weighed by an unprejudiced mind, guided by common sense and by correct.rules of law.

City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 304 (1977). "Reasonable justification" is defined as "...adequate reasons sufficiently supported by credible evidence, when weighed by an unprejudiced mind, guided by common sense and by correct rules , of law." Selectmen of Wakefield y. Judge of District Court of Eastern Middlesex, 262 Mass. 477, 482 (1928) and Commissioners of Civil Service v.

City of Cambridge v. Civil Serv. Commn, 43 Mass. App. Ct. at 304 (1997). In the task of selecting public employees of skill and integrity, appointing authorities are invested with sound discretion. Id. at 304-05 The Commission does not minimize the positive aspects of the Appellants background. The Appellant has no criminal record, has successfully completed a four-year commitment with the U.S.

City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 304, 682 N.E.2d 923, 926 (1997). What it may consider is whether the personnel decision was imbued with overtones of political control or objectives unrelated to merit standards or neutrally applied public policy. Id.

City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 304 (1997). See Town of Watertown v. Arria, 16 9 Mass. App. Ct. 331 (1983); McIsaac v. Civil Service Commission, 38 Mass. App. Ct. 473, 477 (1995); Police Department of Boston v. Collins, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2000); City of Leominster v. Stratton, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 726, 728 (2003).

City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 304 (1997). The issue to determine in this case therefore is whether the Respondent, at the time of the Section 41 hearing, had reasonable justification for suspending the Appellant for a period of five (5) days. Town of Watertown v. Arria, 16 Mass. App. Ct. 331 (1983). McIsaac v. Civil Service Commission, 38 Mass. App. Ct. 473, 477 (1995). Police Department of Boston v.

City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300,304 (1997). See Town of Watertown v. Arria, 16 Mass. App. Ct. 331 (1983); McIsaac v. Civil Service Commission, 38 Mass. App. Ct. 473, 477 (1995); Police Department of Boston v. Collins, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2000); City of Leominster v. Stratton, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 726, 728 (2003).

City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 304 (1997). In reviewing an appeal under G.L. c. 31, section 43, if the Commission finds by a preponderance of the evidence that there was just cause for an action taken against an Appellant, the Commission must affirm the action of the Appointing Authority. Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commission, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 796, 800 (2004).