C.E. Robertson v. PSERS and Greater Johnstown Career and Technology Center
162 A.3d 569
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- Robertson worked for Greater Johnstown Career & Technology Center from 1970 and applied for PSERS retirement on November 7, 2008, naming January 30, 2009 as her retirement date.
- The Center reorganized after learning of her retirement: it eliminated Robertson’s business manager position, promoted a bookkeeper (McCall) into a combined role, and sought Robertson’s assistance to transition duties.
- Robertson signed a contract on December 11, 2008, effective February 4, 2009, to provide advisory/fiscal services as a contractor; she performed those services from Feb. 4, 2009 to Nov. 1, 2013 while receiving PSERS benefits.
- PSERS learned of the post-retirement work in 2013 after an Auditor General letter, rescinded Robertson’s 2009 retirement, and adjusted benefits to reflect an effective retirement date of Nov. 1, 2013.
- Administrative appeals (ESRC, hearing officer, Board) upheld PSERS’ view that Robertson did not experience a bona fide termination of service and therefore continued as a school employee rather than an independent contractor. The Commonwealth Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Robertson experienced a bona fide termination of service before contracting | Robertson: she formally retired Jan. 30, 2009 and then served as an independent contractor starting Feb. 4, 2009 — a valid break | PSERS/Center: reorganization, prearranged contract, substantially similar duties, short (4-day) lapse show continuity, not termination | Held: No bona fide termination; substantial evidence supports Board’s decision |
| Whether Robertson was an independent contractor for post-retirement work | Robertson: contract terms, 1099 pay, work from home, limited hours — Zimmerman factors show independent contractor status | PSERS: independent-contractor label not dispositive; must consider all circumstances and whether there was prior termination | Held: Court declined to treat contractor label as decisive; overall circumstances show continuation of employment |
| Whether a <90‑day break presumption improperly controlled the decision | Robertson: Board relied on a presumption that breaks under 90 days are invalid | PSERS: decision rested on multiple factors, not the internal 90‑day business rule | Held: Board did not base decision on a 90‑day rule; claim rejected |
| Whether due process was violated by suspending benefits without advance notice | Robertson: suspension without prior notice violated due process | PSERS: full administrative appellate process was available and used; precedent rejects requirement of pre-deprivation hearing here | Held: No due process violation — administrative review provided adequate process |
Key Cases Cited
- Baillie v. Public School Employees’ Retirement Board, 993 A.2d 944 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (annuitant must sever connection; immediate return to substantially same work is not a termination)
- Zimmerman v. Public School Employees’ Retirement Board, 522 A.2d 43 (Pa. 1987) (factors to determine employee vs. independent contractor status)
- Hairston-Brown v. Public School Employees’ Retirement Board, 78 A.3d 720 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (administrative appeals process satisfies due process when benefits are later rescinded)
- Estate of Frank B. Fry v. Commissioner, 19 T.C. 461 (T.C. 1952) (continued salary/service undermines claim of severance from employment)