Posts tagged "Randolph"

Sherman v. Town of Randolph, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-164-15)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   SJC-11711   SCOTT SHERMAN  vs.  TOWN OF RANDOLPH & others.[1]       Suffolk.     January 5, 2015. – September 24, 2015.   Present:  Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ.     Civil Service, Decision of Civil Service Commission, Eligibility list, Findings by commission, Judicial review, Police, Promotion.  Police, Promotional examination.  Administrative Law, Decision, Findings, Judicial review.  Practice, Civil, Review respecting civil service.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on May 18, 2012.   The case was heard by Heidi E. Brieger, J., on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and a motion for reconsideration was considered by her.   The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review.     Frank J. McGee for the plaintiff. Bryan F. Bertram, Assistant Attorney General, for the personnel administrator of the human resources division of the Commonwealth. John Foskett for town of Randolph.     DUFFLY, J.  The town of Randolph (town) decided to bypass the plaintiff, Scott Sherman, and appoint three candidates with lower scores on the police sergeant’s examination to its three open police sergeant positions.  Sherman appealed, and, after an evidentiary hearing, a Division of Administrative Law Appeals (DALA) magistrate recommended that Sherman’s appeal be dismissed.  The Civil Service Commission (commission) adopted the magistrate’s findings and recommendation, and dismissed the appeal, concluding that there was “independent and reasonable justification” to bypass Sherman, although noting serious flaws in the town’s interview process.  Sherman sought review of the commission’s decision in the Superior Court.  A Superior Court judge denied Sherman’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and his motion for reconsideration, and judgment entered for the commission.  Sherman appealed, and we allowed his petition for direct appellate review. Sherman argues that his bypass was impermissible because the personnel administrator of the Commonwealth (administrator)[2] improperly delegated to the appointing authority its duty under G. L. c. 31, § 27, to “receive” statements of reasons for bypasses.  He argues also that the town’s decision to bypass him in favor of candidates with lower scores on the civil service examination was not supported by a reasonable justification because the commission determined that the town’s interview process was “fatally flawed.”  In Malloch v. Hanover, 472 Mass.     (2015), we determined that the administrator permissibly may delegate to an appointing authority its duty under G. L. c. 31, § 27, […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - September 24, 2015 at 2:22 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , ,