PAUL DEFARIAS v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION & Another.

── PAUL DEFARIAS v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION & Another. ── Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court Date: May 26, 2026 Category: General 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 24-P-1460 PAUL DEFARIAS vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION & another.1 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0 The plaintiff, Paul DeFarias, appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court affirming the decision of the Civil Service Commission (commission) that the city of Gloucester (city) had reasonable justification to bypass DeFarias for a firefighter position. On appeal, DeFarias argues that because of flaws in the city's background investigation, the commission erred by finding that there was reasonable justification to bypass him. We affirm. Background. "We summarize the relevant facts found by the commission and supported by substantial evidence, supplemented with facts contained in the administrative record and consistent 1 City of Gloucester. with the commission's findings."2 Boston Police Dep't v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 483 Mass. 461, 463 (2019). In March 2022, the city posted four vacancies for firefighter and paramedic positions in the city's fire department. On March 30, 2022, the Commonwealth's human resources division certified a ranked list of twenty-two eligible applicants; DeFarias was ranked sixteenth. Five eligible applicants, including DeFarias, visited the city's offices, signed a copy of the candidate list, and collected the application materials. At the time DeFarias applied for the firefighter and paramedic position, he was approximately twenty- four years old and was a licensed emergency medical technician (EMT) and paramedic. He had also performed EMT or firefighting work for several employers prior to applying to the city. The city's mayor has the ultimate authority to appoint fire department personnel, but it was the mayor's practice to adopt the hiring recommendations of the city's fire chief, Eric Smith. Smith in turn relied on the city's police department to conduct background investigations of applicants for fire department positions. Lieutenant Michael Williams and Detective Jonathan Trefry conducted the background investigation of DeFarias. 2 Here, the commission adopted the findings of a magistrate from the Division of Administrative Law Appeals, who had conducted an evidentiary hearing after referral of DeFarias's appeal by the commission. 2  Throughout the course of their investigation, the detectives corresponded with eight other police departments to collect police records relating to DeFarias, and they verified his educational history through correspondence with two high schools he had attended. The detectives also spoke by telephone to six of DeFarias's prior employers and to three of his personal references. The detectives did not run criminal history and driving history checks as part of DeFarias's background investigation, despite it being their normal practice to conduct such checks.3 Much of the information the detectives collected was posit