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

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 31, § 39 (2026)

Separation from employment; lack of work or money; abolition of position; disability

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

Section 39. If permanent employees in positions having the same title in a departmental unit are to be separated from such positions because of lack of work or lack of money or abolition of positions, they shall, except as hereinafter provided, be separated from employment according to their seniority in such unit and shall be reinstated in the same unit and in the same positions or positions similar to those formerly held by them according to such seniority, so that employees senior in length of service, computed in accordance with section thirty-three, shall be retained the longest and reinstated first. Employees separated from positions under this section shall be reinstated prior to the appointment of any other applicants to fill such positions or similar positions, provided that the right to such reinstatement shall lapse at the end of the ten-year period following the date of such separation.

Any action by an appointing authority to separate a tenured employee from employment for the reasons of lack of work or lack of money or abolition of positions shall be taken in accordance with the provisions of section forty-one. Any such employee who has received written notice of an intent to separate him from employment for such reasons may, as an alternative to such separation, file with his appointing authority, within seven days of receipt of such notice, a written consent to his being demoted to a position in the next lower title or titles in succession in the official service or to the next lower title or titles in the labor service, as the case may be, if in such next lower title or titles there is an employee junior to him in length of service. As soon as sufficient work or funds are available, any employee so demoted shall be restored, according to seniority in the unit, to the title in which he was formerly employed.

If a permanent employee who has become separated from his position because of disability shall be subsequently capable of employment as determined pursuant to section eight of chapter thirty-two by the retirement board, as defined in section one of chapter thirty-two, such employee shall be placed in a position in the same or similar title in the department from which he was separated or any other department prior to the appointment from any civil service list; provided, however, that in the event that such placement of such employee occurs after a period of time greater than five years from the date of such separation or results in such employee occupying a position in a different title from the title of the position from which he was separated, such placement right shall be subject to the completion by such employee of a retraining program established by the appointing authority, and approved by the personnel administrator.

Nothing in this section shall impair the preference provided for disabled veterans by section twenty-six.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36 cases, 1969–2018 · leading case: Sullivan v. Town of Brookline, 758 N.E.2d 110 (Mass. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sullivan v. Town of Brookline, 758 N.E.2d 110 (Mass. 2001). · cites it 20× “32, § 8 (2), and G. L. c. 31, § 39. We conclude that G. L.”
Spencer v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 93 N.E.3d 840 (Mass. 2018). · cites it 4× “Rather, the appointing authority must follow specific procedures to terminate a tenured civil service employee, and the employee is entitled to a full hearing before such termination takes effect.”
Gamache v. Mayor of North Adams, 458 N.E.2d 334 (Mass. App. Ct. 1983). · cites it 4× “See G. L. c. 31, § 39. Thereafter the mayor appointed the plaintiff a captain, and he served in that capacity until his discharge on December 9, 1981.”
Town of Milton v. Pers. Adm'r of the Dep't of Pers. Admin., 406 Mass. 818 (Mass. 1990). · cites it 7× “Upon receiving notification from the local retirement boards that the six retirees referred to above were fit to return to work, the personnel administrator notified the municipalities that, in his view, the retirees are entitled to reinstatement to the next available vacancies…”
Porio v. Dep't of Revenue, 951 N.E.2d 714 (Mass. App. Ct. 2011). · cites it 3× “In that proceeding (civil service appeal), Porio argued that DOR violated G. L. c. 31, § 39, by laying him off while retaining certain other tax examiners who had less seniority.”
Herlihy v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 694 N.E.2d 369 (Mass. App. Ct. 1998). · cites it 6× “In the instant case the boundaries of a “departmental unit,” established by the language of G. L. c. 31, § 39, upon which permanent employees may exercise their seniority rights is not plain.”
City of Boston v. Salaried Employees of North Am., Local 9158, 934 N.E.2d 271 (Mass. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 3× “See G. L. c. 31, § 39. Another provision stated, again in material part, that “[n]on-permanent employees (including provisional[ 1 ] and temporary employees) with more than six months seniority shall be designated for lay off prior to permanent employees in their job…”
O'Neill v. City Manager, 700 N.E.2d 530 (Mass. 1998). “31, § 5, nor the provisions for separation under G. L. c. 31, § 39, create a right to an administrative appeal.”
City of Gloucester v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 557 N.E.2d 1141 (Mass. 1990). “” See G. L. c. 31, § 39 (1988 ed.). As a result of a hearing conducted by the city as appointing authority pursuant to G.”
Castro v. Beecher, 522 F. Supp. 873 (D. Mass. 1981). · cites it 2× “may the City of Boston in conducting reductions in force in the Boston Police and Fire Departments decide which police officers and which firemen to terminate on the basis of seniority as directed by M.G.L. c. 31 § 39, or must the City of Boston maintain the percentage of…”
Andrews v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 846 N.E.2d 1126 (Mass. 2006). “An employee may elect to be demoted to a position in a lower title in lieu of discharge, provided that there is a less-senior employee in the lower title for the demoted employee to replace, G. L. c. 31, § 39, a practice known as “bumping.”
Yebba v. Contributory Ret. Appeal Bd., 406 Mass. 830 (Mass. 1990). · cites it 3× “32, § 8 (2), and G. L. c. 31, § 39. Like his counterpart in the case of Milton v.”
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.