Opinion ID: 204093
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Relationship between HRD and Cities, Towns, and the MBTA under Massachusetts Civil Service Law

Text: Under Massachusetts law, plaintiffs' positions as city and MBTA police officers are subject to the state civil service law. [3] See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 31, § 48 (applying the civil service law to positions in the MBTA); id. § 51 (applying the civil service law to civil service offices in cities). The state civil service law states that the purpose of its requirements is to ensure that employees in civil service positions are recruited, chosen, and promoted based on principles of merit, not on political affiliation, race, age, gender, religion, national origin, or other factors unrelated to individual ability. Id. § 1. [T]he fundamental purposes of the civil service system [are] to guard against political considerations, favoritism, and bias in governmental employment decisions ... and to protect efficient public employees from political control. Cambridge v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 300, 682 N.E.2d 923 (1997). This law also defines the relationship between the state agencies which administer the civil service system and cities, towns, and entities like the MBTA. The defendant cities function as appointing authorit[ies] under this law: they have power to appoint or employ personnel in civil service positions. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 31, § 1. The state civil service law governs all positions in all cities, including positions on a city police force. [4] As appointing authorities, cities enjoy considerable discretion under the law to choose the system they will use to evaluate candidates for police promotions, to determine the criteria for selection, and to make the ultimate selection for a vacant position, as we discuss below. State entities, of course, can also be appointing authorities for state employees. However, the state civil service law uses different language to describe the personnel these state entities appoint or employ. These personnel are within the official service of the Commonwealth or its labor service, a distinction that turns upon whether the position is selected through registration or competitive examination. Id. § 1. Examples of positions in the service of the Commonwealth include positions in the state's department of highways, the department of revenue, the department of environmental management, and in the department of public welfare. Id. § 48. The law explicitly distinguishes these personnel from city police, who are not in the service of the Commonwealth. Instead, by statute, city police occupy [o]ffices and positions in the service of cities and towns, id., and they are subject to the state civil service law based on separate, significantly different sections of the law, id.; see also id. §§ 51-53. HRD, in comparison, is a state agency with statutorily prescribed duties with respect to the administration of the state civil service system, including the preparation and administration of certain competitive promotions examinations. The civil service law identifies HRD as the [a]dministrator, meaning the personnel administrator of the human resources division, as distinct from an appointing authority with the power to appoint or employ the plaintiffs. Id. § 1. As the administrator, HRD has statutory authority to make and amend rules which shall regulate the recruitment, selection, training and employment of persons for civil service positions. Id. § 3. HRD here is not being sued by its own HRD employees, but in its capacity as the administrator of the civil service system. The law also directs HRD to make rules pertaining to promotional appointments, id. § 3(e), and for conducting appointment and promotion examinations, id. § 5(e). HRD is also responsible for maintaining records of examinations, eligible lists resulting from those examinations, and the results of all appointment decisions in the civil service. Id. § 5(h). Significantly, the law also mandates that HRD is [t]o delegate the administrative functions of the civil service system, so far as practicable, to the various state agencies and cities and towns of the commonwealth. Id. § 5( l ). HRD is not the only state agency responsible for the administration of the Massachusetts civil service system. HRD shares this role with another agency, the Civil Service Commission. The Commission has the power to review any rules proposed by HRD, and, if the Commission concludes that a given rule violates a merit-based approach to employment decisions, it can, upon a three-fifths vote, disapprove of the rule. Id. § 3. The Commission can also affirmatively propose amendments to these rules if, in the Commission's view, those changes would reflect basic principles of merit and would serve the public interest. Id. § 2(f). Finally, the Commission, not HRD, is responsible for adjudicating disputes involving various aspects of employment, including disputes concerning the content and administration of promotions examinations. Through this process, individuals who are disappointed by employment decisions can challenge actions taken by a local appointing authority and those taken by HRD. Id. § 2(b)-(c). As part of this process, the Commission can also review the validity of HRD rules when an aggrieved individual challenges a rule. Id. § 2(b). The Commission has previously exercised this authority to scrutinize and ultimately uphold an HRD regulation, which we shall describe later, pertaining to the promotion of minority candidates. See Brackett v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 447 Mass. 233, 850 N.E.2d 533, 541, 553 (2006) (describing the Commission's decision). Beyond this, aggrieved individuals can appeal the Commission's decision in state court and allege that HRD's regulations, HRD's actions, or actions taken by local appointing authorities violated state law. Id. at 553 (finding that the Commission properly concluded that an HRD rule concerning local affirmative action plans was a proper exercise of HRD's statutory authority). The Commission is not a defendant in the present action.