Court Upholds Bypass of Captain for Promotion to District Chief

The Massachusetts Court of Appeals has upheld the decision of the Springfield Fire Commissioner to bypass the promotion of a fire captain to district chef. Springfield Captain Pierre Grenier was bypassed in 2019 in favor of three lower ranked candidates.

Captain Grenier, a 24-year veteran, a US Marine Corps veteran, and a licensed electrician, ranked third on a list of six for promotion to district chief. When the fire commissioner needed to promote five candidates to district chief, he opted to hold an additional process to further evaluate the six candidates. The process, permitted by civil service rules, was explained as follows:

• SFD formed a selection board including Fire Commissioner Bernard Calvi, an SFD Deputy Chief, two outside fire chiefs, the Springfield Director of Finance and Administration, the Springfield Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer, and the Springfield Assistant Human Resources Director.
• While the appointment decision ultimately resided solely with Calvi, the selection board interviewed all the candidates.
• They used a semi-structured process during which each candidate was asked the same ten questions.
• Each board member scored each answer based on a scale of one to five, with one being a low score.

Captain Grenier reportedly did poorly on two questions, one on fireground tactics, the other on improving the department. Those responses and his failure to pursue continuing fire service education were cited by Commissioner Calvi in his decision to bypass him.

Captain Grenier appealed to the Massachusetts Civil Service Commission claiming the fire commissioner did not have proper grounds for the bypass and had a bias against him. The Civil Service Commission upheld the bypass, prompting Captain Grenier to appeal to superior court. When the superior court upheld the decision, Captain Grenier appealed to the Court of Appeals.

In upholding the fire commissioner, the Civil Service Commission, and the superior court decisions, the Court of Appeals ruled as follows:

• A bypass decision is reasonably justified when it is made with “adequate reasons sufficiently supported by credible evidence, when weighed by an unprejudiced mind guided by common sense and by correct rules of law.“
• Grenier contends that it was improper for the appointing authority to rely solely on the interview process in making its bypass determination and challenges certain aspects of the structure of the process.
• Here, the commission concluded that the interview process used by the city was “reasonably fair and not overly subjective or arbitrary.” We agree.
• The selection board included four senior-level public safety officials from within and outside the department as well as city human resources officials.
• Each interviewee was asked the same set of standard questions, which appropriately inquired into qualities that would be important in a district fire chief.
• The interviewers scored those responses with a numerical system.
• The interviewers also took notes, which the commission reviewed and found to be “remarkably consistent.”
• The interview process used by the city was therefore appropriate.
• Additionally, while Grenier’s responses to two of the interview questions were ultimately decisive in Calvi’s choice to promote the lower-ranked candidates, the interview was not the sole criterion used in the selection process.
• Rather, the city appropriately looked at the candidates’ examination scores, education and experience, and relevant professional qualities as demonstrated through the candidates’ responses to interview questions.
• Grenier broadly contends that Calvi was biased against him and this bias infected the entirety of the appointment process.
• Grenier argues that this bias is demonstrated by the fact that Calvi discredited Grenier’s educational experiences relative to those of the lower-ranked candidates, judged Grenier’s interview answers overly harshly, and over-emphasized the Crystal Street fire incident as compared to the rest of Grenier’s work history.
• The commission determined that any negative opinions Calvi held about Grenier were “all based on [Calvi’s] percipient knowledge and perception derived from Capt. Grenier’s on-the-job performance and did not come from an unlawful bias or undue political or personal favoritism toward any of the other candidates.” We agree.
• Calvi articulated that he was most troubled by Grenier’s failure to learn from on-the-job experience and by his lack of a vision for improvement of the department.
• These are legitimate employment considerations and do not demonstrate a personal or political bias against Grenier as an individual.

Here is a copy of the decision: