On October 2, 2025, the Massachusetts Appeals Court convened to hear oral arguments regarding a contentious case involving Bristol Community College (BCC) and former campus police officer Susan Ladoux. The central issue revolves around BCC's request for a stay on a superior court order that mandates the college to employ Ladoux in a public safety role, despite her lack of the necessary police certification.

BCC argues that the court's order violates the Police Reform Act, which requires all campus police officers to be certified by the Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) before performing any law enforcement duties. The college contends that Ladoux, who has not yet obtained this certification, should not be allowed to hold the title of campus police officer, as it creates a legal conflict and undermines the integrity of the campus police department.

During the proceedings, BCC's legal representatives emphasized that employing Ladoux without the required certification not only contravenes state law but also poses a risk to public safety. They argued that the financial resources allocated to her position could be better utilized to hire a qualified officer, thereby enhancing campus security. The college's counsel highlighted that the current arrangement limits the effective functioning of the police department and could lead to potential safety issues for students and staff.

Conversely, Ladoux's attorney argued that her previous experience and qualifications make her a suitable candidate for the position. They asserted that the court's order was justified, as it aimed to rectify past wrongs and ensure that Ladoux could return to work after being wrongfully denied her position in 2016. The defense maintained that the statute allows for equitable remedies, emphasizing the importance of reinstating employees who have suffered workplace injustices.

The court also examined the implications of the collective bargaining agreement between BCC and its employees, which outlines the rights and responsibilities of both parties. BCC's representatives argued that the superior court's order disrupts the established procedures for managing employee discipline and employment status, potentially leading to unpredictability in the workplace.

As the arguments unfolded, the justices sought clarity on the potential irreparable harm to BCC if the order were to remain in effect. They questioned whether the court could impose an injunction that conflicts with the collective bargaining agreement, highlighting the delicate balance between legal compliance and employee rights.

The outcome of this case could have significant ramifications for BCC's campus police department and the broader context of employment law within public institutions. The court's decision will likely address not only the specific circumstances surrounding Ladoux's employment but also the interpretation of statutory requirements and collective bargaining agreements in similar cases moving forward. The justices are expected to deliberate on the matter and issue a ruling that could reshape the landscape of public safety employment standards in Massachusetts.