On May 22, 2019 the Springfield Fire Department announced that promotional exams for the position of “deputy fire chief” would be held on June 18, 2019.
Initially the exam was open to district fire chiefs only. The original deadline was June 4.
After just five applicants enrolled for the exam, the fire department extended the deadline to June 12 and permitted fire captains to apply for the test as well.
Marc Savage, who was a Springfield fire captain at the time, saw the extended deadline on June 10.
Despite being aware of the opportunity, Savage failed to submit his application by the deadline.
He then waited over four months before contesting the exam’s administration with the Massachusetts Civil Service Commission (CSC).
Savage’s appeal to the CSC claimed that the city failed to provide at least six weeks notice prior to the examination. His argument was based on a 2018 memorandum from the Massachusetts Human Resource Division.
While fastidious towards the city’s exam timelines, Savage failed to realize that his CSC appeal was filed several months too late.
Statutory law (M.G.L. c. 31, Section 22) sets a 17-day limit for filing appeals regarding the administration of civil service exams. The Code of Massachusetts Regulations (specifically 801 CMR, Section 1.01) which might also apply under the circumstances, sets a time limit of 30 days for filing a complaint against certain administrative actions.
Accordingly, the CSC dismissed Savage’s appeal as time-barred.
Undeterred, Savage filed a pro se lawsuit against the city in superior court. The trial judge sided with the CSC and dismissed the lawsuit by summary judgment.
His tenacity unchecked, Savage appealed the trial court’s ruling.
The Appeals Court unsurprisingly agreed with the lower court and the CSC. No matter how you viewed Savage’s challenge to the examination, his appeal was filed much too late to be considered.
Acknowledging the neither the statutory law nor the regularity law cited above exactly fits the present case, the justices concluded,
Nonetheless, there is no dispute that the plaintiff’s appeal, filed some four months after the date of the examination, was untimely under either of these statutes, as the plaintiff appears to concede.
The opinion continues,
We discern no error of law in the commission’s analysis of the timeliness of the plaintiff’s claim. As noted above, the plaintiff’s claim was untimely under either applicable statute. Because the plaintiff cites no authority that requires the commission to consider his untimely claim, and because we are aware of none, we affirm. (Citations omitted.)
The full text of the opinion is attached below.