Appeals Court overturns Civil Service decision

The Massachusetts Appeals Court on Oct. 28 affirmed a Superior Court ruling that the Civil Service Commission overstepped its bounds by ordering the city of Beverly to hire a police officer candidate that it had bypassed due to his firing from a previous job.

In the summer of 2006, having taken the relevant civil service examination, a candidate applied for an open position as a reserve police officer in Beverly. As part of its background investigation on the applicant, the city discovered that he had recently been fired from his job as a security guard at Beverly Hospital for “intentionally accessing the private voicemail” of several hospital employees, according to the hospital. The hospital had video evidence that confirmed that the candidate was responsible.

The city asked the candidate about the firing, and he denied that he accessed the voicemail accounts, claiming that he was fired for union activities. The city then turned the hospital evidence over to its information technology department to determine if the evidence was reliable, which the IT department confirmed. Based on the evidence and the lack of credible explanation from the candidate, the city decided to bypass him.

The candidate appealed to the Civil Service Commission, which, after hearing the evidence, ruled, 3-2, that the city acted improperly in bypassing him because the city did not prove the allegations made against him by the hospital. According to the commission, it was not enough for the city to review the evidence provided by the hospital; the city was required to prove that the allegations were true.

A Superior Court judge ruled that the city exercised due diligence and acted properly in bypassing the candidate.

In City of Beverly v. Civil Service Commission, the Appeals Court affirmed the lower court decision, finding that “the city demonstrated a reasonable justification to bypass [the candidate] and that the commission improperly substituted its judgment for that of the city in ordering that he be hired.”

The MMA had filed an amicus brief on behalf of the city, prepared by the law firm Collins, Loughran & Peloquin.

The MMA and local officials argue that the Civil Service Commission no longer functions as an impartial arbiter between applicant and appointing authority. The MMA is filing legislation again next year to eliminate the Civil Service Commission.