Depending on the reasons given for your bypass, you have next to no chance of winning an appeal. If it is based on an oral board/assessment center, if the hiring authority wants the candidate below you on the list, they will get him/her. A good book on the issue is written by Pat Rogers, it covers all aspects of hiring/promotion/bypass/demotion and all relevant case law. Good deal for $30.00.
A few good employment attorneys are Sandulli Grace in Boston, Kevin Power, esq., and Murphy, Hesse, Toomey and Lehane in Quincy. Unless you can show some egregious wrongdoing on the part of the hiring authority, save your money and join the ranks of us who enjoy our favorite holiday, PASSOVER :up:
If you do win your case, the best that will come out of it is that you will be placed on the top of next list when they hire again. It is very rare that a town will fire the person that they bypassed you for.
Yes - experience as a patrolman is a factor in being promoted to Sergeant. (see below). However, standing alone, I don't believe it is sufficient for a bypass. The appointing authority would likely need additional reasons.
In support of his appeal, the Appellant presented credible evidence that he has more experience as a police officer than officer Bonilla. The Appellant also presented evidence that he has been active in the community. In addition, the Appellant has shown that he is well respected in the department as well as in the community. Since, the Appointing Authority did not present any evidence that showed that officer Bonilla was more qualified, experienced or trained for the Sergeant's position than the Appellant. The Commission finds that the Appellant has shown that the reasons given for his bypass applied equally to him and that his qualifications, experience, and training are equal to or better than Officer Bonilla.
"Training and Experience" can be "counted twice" - (i.e. factored into the exam score - and also relied upon by the appointing authority).
Third, the Appointing Authority argues that they were justified in relying upon the promoted candidate's training and experience in making the promotion. The Commission finds this argument to be persuasive and justifies the provisional promotion in this particular instance. Certainly, an Appointing Authority, when selecting candidates for promotion, either on a permanent or provisional basis, are not bound to select candidates strictly according to their examination score. Although a candidate's training and experience are factored into the exam score, (G.L. c. 31, sec. 22) subjective factors are of obvious importance, especially in the realm of public safety.