Durkin v. Boston Retirement Board
83 Mass. App. Ct. 116
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2013Background
- Durkin, a Boston police officer, committed a shooting while intoxicated after an off-duty social event; the shooting harmed another officer Behnke.
- Durkin pled guilty to assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon on April 23, 2007.
- Durkin later applied for deferred superannuation retirement, and a 2011 board hearing deprived him of his pension under G. L. c. 32, § 15(4).
- The District Court affirmed the board’s decision; on appeal, the issue was whether the crime was sufficiently connected to Durkin’s police-officer position to warrant pension forfeiture.
- The court emphasized police officers’ high standards and the need for a nexus between the member’s criminal conduct and his official duties.
- The Supreme Judicial Court remanded on procedural issues and the court ultimately affirmed the pension forfeiture order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Durkin’s criminal act was directly linked to his police position. | Durkin’s actions violated laws and breached public trust inherent to his office. | The conduct was off-duty and not within the scope of official duties, though linked by public trust implications. | Yes; nexus between crime and officer position established. |
| What standard governs pension forfeiture under § 15(4) and police duties. | Applicable standards focus on direct linkage and integrity of the service. | Bulger and Tyler standards require assessing unique facts and integrity impact. | Standards require examining how the crime relates to the officer’s duties and public trust. |
| Whether off-duty misconduct can justify pension forfeiture for police officers. | Off-duty acts may reflect on ability to perform duties and undermine public trust. | Not every off-duty act qualifies; must be directly tied to official position. | Off-duty misconduct can justify forfeiture when directly linked to the office and trust. |
| Is the court’s review limited to the nexus analysis or also to other considerations? | Nexus is central to the forfeiture decision. | Appropriate to consider context, standards, and the officer’s role. | Nexus-based analysis governs, with appropriate weight to officer’s role and responsibilities. |
Key Cases Cited
- State Bd. of Retirement v. Bulger, 446 Mass. 169 (2006) (forfeiture upheld where conduct breached public trust and duties)
- Attorney Gen. v. McHatton, 428 Mass. 790 (1999) (police officers must act with integrity beyond mere compliance with law)
- Police Commr. of Boston v. Civil Service Commn., 22 Mass. App. Ct. 364 (1986) (officers’ conduct reflecting on public service responsibilities)
- Falmouth v. Civil Serv. Commn., 61 Mass. App. Ct. 796 (2004) (off-duty conduct affecting trust and suitability for office)
- Doherty v. Retirement Bd. of Medford, 425 Mass. 130 (1997) (procedural considerations in Pension forfeiture actions)
- Scully v. Retirement Bd. of Beverly, 80 Mass. App. Ct. 538 (2011) (procedural posture and standards for reviewing pension decisions)