Carey v. Casey
| Decision Date | 22 May 1923 |
| Citation | 139 N.E. 384,245 Mass. 12 |
| Parties | CAREY v. CASEY. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Case Reserved from Supreme Judicial Court, Suffolk County.
Petition by John J. Carey for a writ of mandamus, directed to William J. Casey, and commanding defendant to reinstate petitioner to his former position in the classified public service of the city of Boston. Reserved on the pleadings and the agreed facts for the consideration of the full court. Petition dismissed.
Petitioner was employed as press feeder in the city's printing department, and defendant was superintendent of such department. Petitioner on May 13, 1922, was notified in writing that his services were to be terminated on May 16, on which date he was removed, and his wages discontinued. No other written notice was given him, and defendant had refused to reinstate him.
Frederick W. & Edmund R. Mansfield, of Boston, for plaintiff.
E. Mark Sullivan, Corp. Counsel, and Joseph P. Lyons, Asst. Corp. Counsel, both of Boston, for defendant.
In this petition for a writ of mandamus the petitioner seeks to compel the defendant superintendent of the printing department of the city of Boston to reinstate the petitioner in his former position of press feeder. It was agreed that the petitioner had worked as a press feeder in the printing department of the city, for about 9 years until January 1, 1921, when he ceased. December 22, 1921, he returned to the same employment, having been certified from the civil service list and appointed by the then superintendentof the printing department, and continued in this employment until May 16, 1922. May 13, 1922, the defendant notified the petitioner in writing that his services would end on May 16. In this notification it was stated that the petitioner was appointed to take the place of an employee who had been illegally discharged; that in accordance with civil service rules the discharged employee must be reinstated in his former position. No other written notice was given to the petitioner, and the defendant has refused to reinstate him.
The question in the case is whether the notice of removal was in accordance with the statutes of the commonwealth. Under G. L. c. 31, § 43, an employee cannot be removed from his employment except for just cause, and ‘for reasons specifically given him in writing within 24 hours after such removal.’ ‘If within 3 days thereafter, the person sought to be removed’ shall so request in writing, he is to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sherrer v. Sherrer
...Mass. 128, 83 N.E. 361;Bay State Dredging & Contracting Co. v. W. H. Ellis & Son Co., 235 Mass. 263, 267, 268, 126 N.E. 468;Carey v. Casey, 245 Mass. 12, 139 N.E. 384;Reagan v. Mayor of Fall River, 260 Mass. 529, 531, 157 N.E. 522;Nevins v. Board of Public Welfare of Everett, 301 Mass. 502,......
-
Thibeault v. City of New Bedford
...to terminate the petitioner's employment as of February 12, if in other respects it complied with the statute. See Carey v. Casey, 245 Mass. 12, 139 N.E. 384. The notice in effect asserted two grounds: (1) the failure to complete the six months' probationary period and (2) the heart attack ......
-
Sherrer v. Sherrer
... ... Reardon v. Cummings, 197 Mass. 128; Bay State ... Dredging & Contracting Co. v. W. H. Ellis & Son Co ... 235 Mass. 263 , 267-268; Carey v. Casey, 245 Mass ... 12; Reagan v. Mayor of Fall River, 260 Mass. 529 , ... 531; Nevins v. Board of Public Welfare of Everett, ... 301 Mass ... ...
-
Nevins v. Bd. of Pub. Welfare of Everett
...and removal was given before, rather than after, such suspension or removal did not render the proceedings invalid. Carey v. Casey, 245 Mass. 12, 139 N.E. 384;Reagan v. Mayor of Fall River, 260 Mass. 529, 157 N.E. 522. Furthermore, the charges were adequate and complied with the statute as ......