Mass. Gen. Laws » Part I Title IV Chapter 31
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 31, § 27 (2026)

Appointment or promotion; manner of selection

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 27. Except as provided otherwise by section fifteen, if the administrator certifies from an eligible list the names of three persons who are qualified for and willing to accept a promotional appointment, the appointing authority, pursuant to the civil service law and rules, may appoint only from among such persons. In the case of either an original or promotional vacancy, if such eligible list contains the names of fewer than three such persons, the appointing authority may appoint from among those persons or may request authorization to make a provisional appointment pursuant to sections twelve, thirteen and fourteen. If the administrator or an appointing authority delegated by the administrator, applying the formula for original appointments set out in the rules of the administrator, certifies from an eligible list the names of persons who are qualified and willing to accept an original appointment, the appointing authority, pursuant to the civil service law and rules, may appoint only from among such persons; provided, however, that for each such person, if any, who is bypassed or rejected as not being in compliance with applicable entrance requirements or who withdraws from the application process, the appointing authority may appoint from among a group that includes the next highest-ranked person on the certification; and provided further, that the administrator or an appointing authority delegated by the administrator shall not include the name of any person who has been so bypassed or rejected on any future certification from the same original appointment eligible list unless directed to do so by the commission.

If an appointing authority makes an original or promotional appointment from a certification of any qualified person other than the qualified person whose name appears highest, and the person whose name ranks highest on the certification is willing to accept such appointment, the appointing authority shall immediately provide to the person who ranked highest a written statement of the reasons for appointing the person whose name was not highest and such appointment shall be effective only when such statement of reasons has been provided. This written statement shall notify the bypassed individual of their right to appeal to the commission, should the reasons proffered not be deemed by the individual sound and sufficient, within 60 days of issuance of the statement of reasons. In response to a public records request, the appointing authority shall make a copy of such statement available for inspection.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2024 · leading case: Malloch v. Town of Hanover, 37 N.E.3d 1027 (Mass. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Malloch v. Town of Hanover, 37 N.E.3d 1027 (Mass. 2015). · cites it 17× “31, § 2 (b), arguing that, where an appointing authority promotes a candidate other than the candidate ranked highest on the certification list, the promotion will not become effective until the appointing authority’s written statement of reasons for the bypass “has been…”
Crete v. City of Lowell, 418 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2005). · cites it 4× “Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 31, § 27 . If the City wants to do so, it must “bypass” or “remove” the higher ranking individual.”
Brackett v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 447 Mass. 233 (Mass. 2006). · cites it 2× “See G. L. c. 31, § 27. Finally, no quotas with respect to promotions were established under Rule 10, and the MBTA’s affirmative action program expired on January 1, 2000.”
Bielawski v. Pers. Adm'r of the Div. of Pers. Admin., 663 N.E.2d 821 (Mass. 1996). · cites it 3× “This action arises from five separate decisions by the board of selectmen of Dedham (selectmen) to “bypass” the plaintiff pursuant to G. L. c. 31, § 27 (1994 ed.), for a promotion from patrolman to sergeant.”
Lopez v. Massachusetts, 588 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 31, § 27 . Municipalities could bypass the top-ranked candidate on an eligibility list for many reasons, including a history of domestic violence, past criminal charges, or any other grounds pertaining to the candidate’s ability to effectively perform in the…”
Cotter v. City of Boston, 323 F.3d 160 (1st Cir. 2003). · cites it 2× “See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 31, § 27 (2002). The BPD sent a letter to the HRD stating that the departure from strict rank order to promote the African-American Officers was done to “ensure compliance with current EEOC guidelines, and applicable federal and state discrimination laws.”
City of Cambridge v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 682 N.E.2d 923 (Mass. App. Ct. 1997). · cites it 2× “The appointing authority of that city developed some adverse facts about Langston in a record check and obtained permission from the administrator of the State Department of Personnel Administration (the “Administrator”) to “bypass” her in accordance with G. L. c. 31, § 27. The…”
Police Dep't of Boston v. Kavaleski, 978 N.E.2d 55 (Mass. 2012). · cites it 2× “See G. L. c. 31, § 27. This case arises from the third such bypass, which Kavaleski appealed to the Civil Service Commission (commission).”
MacHenry v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 666 N.E.2d 1029 (Mass. App. Ct. 1996). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to G. L. c. 31, § 27, the selectmen submitted to the Department of Personnel Administration (DPA) a written statement of reasons for the bypass, as required by § 27 in order for the appointment to become effective.”
Massachusetts Ass'n of Minority Law Enf't Officers v. Abban, 748 N.E.2d 455 (Mass. 2001). “See G. L. c. 31, § 27. The examination scores of the minority officers who were promoted were no more than two points lower than those of the nonminority officers who were bypassed.”
Mayor of Revere v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 577 N.E.2d 325 (Mass. App. Ct. 1991). · cites it 2× “See G. L. c. 31, § 27. The administrator, exercising special authority given him to revive the expired 1979 test, certified a “short list” to the mayor consisting of a single candidate, Ryan.”
Boston Police Superior Officers Fed'n v. City of Boston, 147 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 1998). “Boston Police Commissioner Paul Evans gave the DPA a written explanation of his decision to skip over the higher-scoring candidates, see Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 31, § 27 (providing that in the event of a promotion not made strictly according to certified rank order, “the appointing…”
Show all 36 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.