NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 

23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 

1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to 

the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the 

panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to 

the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that 

decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued 

after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of 

the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 

Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

22-P-134

JEFFREY GODERE

vs.

CITY OF CHICOPEE & another.1 

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

On November 2, 2018, appellant Jeffrey Godere, then a 

sergeant in the Chicopee police department, was terminated from 

the department for untruthful conduct during an internal affairs 

investigation. He appealed his termination to the appellee 

Civil Service Commission (commission), which is charged with 

deciding whether there was just cause for a disciplinary action 

taken against the employee. Just cause is defined in this 

context to mean "substantial misconduct which adversely affects 

the public interest by impairing the efficiency of the public 

service." Doherty v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 486 Mass. 487, 493 

(2020), quoting Police Comm'r of Boston v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 

39 Mass. App. Ct. 594, 599 (1996). The commission conducted an 

evidentiary hearing and issued a written decision on February 

1 Civil Service Commission.
2

13, 2020. In that decision, the commission concluded that 

Godere's conduct "was a violation of the rules and regulations 

of the [Chicopee] Police Department regarding untruthfulness and 

constituted substantial misconduct which adversely affected the

public interest." It further concluded, however, that several 

factors in the case "warrant[ed] a modification of the penalty 

imposed." Accordingly, the commission allowed Godere's appeal 

in part, vacated his termination, and demoted him from the rank 

of sergeant to the rank of police officer. Godere sought 

judicial review in the Superior Court, under G. L. c. 30A, § 14, 

arguing that he should not have been punished at all for his 

untruthful conduct.2 A judge of the Superior Court affirmed the 

commission's decision, and this appeal followed.

Background. The facts underlying this dispute are well 

known to all parties and will not be repeated here in detail. 

We summarize the proceedings below and the relevant portions of 

the commission's findings of fact. On August 26, 2011, Chicopee 

2 The appellee city of Chicopee (city) argued before the Superior 

Court judge that the commission erred in modifying the penalty 

and that Godere's termination should be reinstated. The city 

makes the same argument here. Because the city failed to file a 

cross appeal, those arguments are waived. See Saugus v. Refuse 

Energy Sys. Co., 388 Mass. 822, 831 (1983), quoting Boston 

Edison Co. v. Boston Redev. Auth., 374 Mass. 37, 43 n.5 (1977) 

("Although a party may defend a judgment on any ground asserted 

in the trial court, failure to take a cross appeal precludes a 

party from obtaining a judgment more favorable to it than the 

judgment entered below").
3

officers, including Godere, responded to an apartment for a call 

of an unresponsive person. A female, determined to be deceased,

apparently as a result of homicide, was discovered on the floor. 

Using their cell phones, two officers took a picture of the 

female and forwarded the photo to fellow police officers via 

individual text messages. At the police station, one of the 

officers who took the picture showed Godere the picture. Godere 

asked that the officer send him the photo, and after receiving 

the photo Godere forwarded the photo to another officer, denoted 

in the proceedings below, and to whom we will refer here, as 

Officer CL. CL showed the photo to multiple parents at a 

sporting event the next day. One month later, the Chicopee 

police department was made aware of the incident and 

approximately four months later commenced an internal 

investigation.

Four officers, including Godere, actively impeded the 

internal investigation by lying to the investigator. When asked 

about how he had received the photo of the female homicide 

victim, Godere responded that he "receive[s] different pictures, 

jokes and videos that people send me" and did "not recall who 

sent [him] the picture." When asked whether he had sent the 

photo of the female homicide victim to anyone else, Godere 

responded "[a]gain, I receive different pictures, jokes and 

videos on my phone. Some of those pictures, jokes and videos I 
4

forward to others. I do not recall if I sent this particular 

picture to anyone." Both answers were untrue. Godere was 

intentionally misleading the investigator because he was 

concerned about being a "rat." Eventually, he told the 

investigator the truth.

At the conclusion of the internal investigation, three of 

the officers, including Godere, were charged with "incompetence" 

for "failing to conform to work standards established for the 

officers' position." CL was given three tours of punishment 

duty; Godere and one other officer received a written warning. 

Specifically, Godere was reprimanded for his improper use of a 

cell phone during an ongoing investigation. None of the 

officers were charged with untruthfulness.

Though the police chief had refrained from disciplining any 

of the officers for untruthfulness, he did inform the district 

attorney of the incident. The district attorney wrote to the 

police chief that "[s]uch lack of honesty is very troubling. In 

future court proceedings, I will be ethically obligated, under 

mandatory discovery requirements, to produce this material when 

relevant to the question of these officers' credibility." On 

January 10, 2013, the district attorney issued a "Brady" 

memorandum, derived from Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), 

to all assistant district attorneys, indicating that when either 

Godere or CL was a potential witness in a case, the assistant 
5

district attorney should determine whether disclosure of the 

officer's prior untruthfulness in the internal investigation 

would be relevant as exculpatory material. Upon receiving the 

"Brady" letter, the chief of police discussed with the mayor the 

possibility of additional discipline for Godere and CL. They 

decided against it. For four years after the "Brady" letter was 

issued, no further administrative action related to the photo 

incident was taken against Godere or CL. Godere was not even 

made aware of the letter.

In 2017, however, Chicopee had a new mayor and a new chief 

of police. Both eventually learned of the existence of the 

"Brady" letter, and again the question of additional discipline 

arose. This time, the question was answered in the affirmative. 

The mayor issued Godere a notice of contemplated discipline, a 

discipline hearing was held, and Godere was ultimately 

terminated on November 2, 2018. On review, as described at the 

outset, the commission modified Godere's penalty, ordering that 

Godere instead be demoted from sergeant to police officer.

Discussion. We review the commission's decision to 

determine whether "the substantial rights of any party may have 

been prejudiced [because the commission decision] is based on an 

error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, or otherwise 

not in accordance with the law." Spencer v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 

479 Mass. 210, 215 (2018) (quotation and citation omitted). 
6

Godere argues that the commission erred in upholding the 

decision to discipline him. He argues that the determination 

not to discipline him for untruthfulness reached at the end of 

the initial internal investigation cannot be revisited years 

later by a subsequent administration. He argues that it is 

contrary to the purpose of the civil service system to allow the

election of a new mayor or the appointment of a new police chief 

to result in the reversal of prior decisions not to discipline a 

permanent, tenured civil service employee based upon the same 

information that was available to their predecessors.

Of course, "'[t]he fundamental purpose of the civil service 

system is to guard against political considerations, favoritism, 

and bias in governmental hiring and promotion.' Massachusetts 

Ass'n of Minority Law Enforcement Officers v. Abban, 434 Mass. 

256, 259 (2001). It also is designed to 'protect efficient 

public employees' from partisanship and arbitrary punishment. 

Murray v. Second Dist. Court of E. Middlesex, 389 Mass. 508, 514 

(1983), quoting Debnam v. Belmont, 388 Mass. 632, 635 (1983). 

See Dedham v. Labor Relations Comm'n, 365 Mass. 392, 396-397 

(1974)." Fernandes v. Attleboro Hous. Auth., 470 Mass. 117, 123 

(2014). But Godere points to no statute, regulation, or 

decision that disempowers a newly elected or appointed official 

from re-examining a decision of their predecessor not to 

discipline a civil service employee even though they act 
7

otherwise lawfully. Nor does Godere point to any statute of 

limitations or other source of law under which discipline for 

his untruthfulness came too late.

He argues next that the commission's decision violates 

principles of "industrial double jeopardy," see Zayas v. Bacardi 

Corp., 524 F.3d 65, 68 (1st Cir. 2008), because the city 

penalized him "twice for the same infraction." Id. at 69. But,

assuming what we need not decide, that industrial double 

jeopardy principles apply, Godere's invocation of them is 

inapposite. He was reprimanded in 2012 for his improper "use of 

a cell phone during an ongoing investigation." But he was 

terminated in 2018 because he was found to have been untruthful 

and to have "impeded th[e] investigation" into his improper use 

of the cell phone. These thus are not two punishments for the 

"same infraction" or, as he also puts it, quoting Heier v. North 

Dakota Dep't of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 820 N.W.2d 394, 

399 (N.D. 2012), "one instance of misconduct."

Finally, he argues that he has been treated differently 

than two other officers, who were found to have been similarly 

untruthful in the internal affairs investigation but have since

been promoted. Godere raised his concerns about unequal 

treatment with the commission, which relied upon them in 

modifying the penalty. Although we express no opinion on the 

propriety of those modifications, see note 2, supra, we have 
8

observed that the commission's "power to modify penalties 

permits the furtherance of uniformity and the equitable 

treatment of similarly situated individuals. It must be used to 

further, and not to frustrate, the purpose of civil service 

legislation, i.e., 'to protect efficient public employees from 

partisan political control.' Debnam[,] 388 Mass. [at 635]. It 

is not to be used 'to prevent the removal of those who have 

proved to be incompetent or unworthy to continue in the public 

service.' Cullen v. Mayor of Newton, 308 Mass. 578, 581 (1941)." 

Police Comm'r of Boston v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 39 Mass. App. Ct. 

594, 600 (1995). By contrast, Godere points to no case law, and 

we know of none, that holds that the department's failure, even 

wrongful failure, to discipline officers who committed similar

improper acts grants an officer immunity from a commission 

determination that there was just cause for disciplinary action

against him.

As the commission decision was supported by substantial 

evidence, and Godere has shown neither legal error nor that the 

decision was not in accordance with law, the judgment of the 
9

Superior Court affirming the decision of the commission will be 

affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

By the Court (Meade, Rubin & 

Blake, JJ.3),

Clerk

Entered: August 9, 2023.

3 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.