308 A.3d 977
R.I.2024Background
- Angelo Riccitelli, a retired North Providence firefighter, received a disability pension and claimed entitlement to a supplemental pension payment under the town’s collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the firefighters’ union.
- The CBA required the town to pay Riccitelli the difference between his pension and his “monthly net pay” at retirement, less any pension deductions.
- Upon retiring, Riccitelli argued he was not being paid the full amount he was owed, as the town’s calculations deducted state and federal taxes.
- Riccitelli sued the town in Superior Court, seeking judgment and back pay based on his interpretation of the CBA.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for Riccitelli, concluding the CBA language was clear and supporting his calculation.
- On appeal, the town contended that summary judgment was improper without the full CBA in the record and made several arguments around ambiguity and material facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does “monthly net pay” unambiguously require calculation based on actual pay at retirement without tax deductions? | Riccitelli: CBA’s plain language means actual retirement pay, only deducting what was specifically withheld. | Town: “Monthly net pay” is ambiguous; taxes should be deducted, and course of conduct shows parties interpreted it this way. | Not reached; court vacated summary judgment, finding the CBA was not on record, so ambiguity could not be determined. |
| Was summary judgment proper without the entire CBA in evidence? | Riccitelli: Town should provide CBA if arguing ambiguity; only key snippet relevant. | Town: Entire CBA needed to determine context and ambiguity. | Court agreed with town: summary judgment improper without entire CBA in the record. |
| Did Riccitelli meet his initial burden as movant for summary judgment? | Riccitelli: Provided evidence and argued no material fact issues exist. | Town: Riccitelli failed to authenticate evidence and left a material fact open by omitting the CBA. | Court found Riccitelli did not meet burden; summary judgment was improper. |
| Should the trial court have considered extrinsic evidence (course of performance)? | Riccitelli: Not necessary if language is unambiguous. | Town: Practice/interpretation by parties relevant and should be considered. | Court did not decide; vacated based on lack of complete record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Benaski v. Weinberg, 899 A.2d 499 (R.I. 2006) (standard for de novo review of summary judgment)
- Garden City Treatment Center, Inc. v. Coordinated Health Partners, Inc., 852 A.2d 535 (R.I. 2004) (requirement to interpret contract by considering the entire document)
- Rotelli v. Catanzaro, 686 A.2d 91 (R.I. 1996) (ambiguity in contract terms precludes summary judgment)
- General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. Johnson, 746 A.2d 122 (R.I. 2000) (burden on movant to make prima facie case for summary judgment)