37 N.E.3d 1027
Mass.2015Background
- Kristin Malloch, highest scorer on Hanover police sergeant civil service exam, was bypassed for two promotions; town promoted the 2nd and 3rd ranked candidates after interviews.
- Town manager (appointing authority) filed written bypass reasons with the personnel administrator's office per G. L. c. 31, § 27; HRD had a 2009 policy delegating certain administrative functions (including handling bypass notifications) to municipalities.
- Malloch appealed to the Civil Service Commission arguing (1) “received by the administrator” in § 27 requires substantive review/approval by HRD and (2) HRD could not delegate that review under G. L. c. 31, § 5(l); the commission upheld the bypass on the merits.
- Superior Court judge agreed that § 27 required HRD review and held delegation impracticable, ordered HRD to substantively review the bypass reasons and remanded; HRD and the town appealed.
- Supreme Judicial Court held HRD permissibly delegated the administrative function of ‘‘receiving’’ bypass statements (§ 27) and that “received” does not require HRD approval; vacated the Superior Court remand and sent the case back for merits review of the commission’s decision under G. L. c. 30A, § 14.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of “received by the administrator” in G. L. c. 31, § 27 | "Received" requires HRD to substantively review and approve bypass reasons before appointment is effective | "Received" means mere receipt/filing; no approval required | Court: "received" means receipt, not mandatory approval by HRD |
| Delegability under G. L. c. 31, § 5(l) of administrator’s § 27 function | HRD may not delegate receipt/review because impracticable for appointing authority to self-review | HRD may delegate administrative functions "so far as practicable," including receipt and dissemination | Court: Delegation permissible and practicable here given training/manuals and audit authority |
| Proper forum and scope for substantive review of bypass justification | HRD must perform substantive review before appointment effective | Commission is the adjudicative body to assess reasonable justification on appeal | Court: Commission (not HRD) adjudicates bypass appeals; Superior Court must review commission decision on substantial-evidence grounds |
| Adequacy of town's justification and possible gender bias | Malloch argued bypass may reflect gender bias and insufficient justification | Town argued interviews and evaluations provided reasonable justification | Court: Commission found town met preponderance standard but noted concerns about gender overtones; SJC remanded for judicial review of commission’s decision on the merits under G. L. c. 30A, § 14 |
Key Cases Cited
- Sheehan v. Weaver, 467 Mass. 734 (Mass. 2014) (standard of review for statutory interpretation)
- Brackett v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 447 Mass. 233 (Mass. 2006) (appointing authority may bypass higher-ranked candidate; burden to justify bypass)
- Police Dep't of Boston v. Kavaleski, 463 Mass. 680 (Mass. 2012) (commission assesses reasonable justification by preponderance)
- Bielawski v. Personnel Adm'r, 422 Mass. 459 (Mass. 1996) (due process / procedural scheme discussion regarding administrator role)
- Kelleher v. Personnel Adm'r, 421 Mass. 382 (Mass. 1995) (administrator approval role for provisional promotions/appoinments)
- MacHenry v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 632 (Mass. App. Ct. 1996) (discussed scope of administrator’s role in accepting bypass reasons)