Galenski v. Town of Erving, 471 Mass. 305

Background

Charlene Galenski retired in 2012 after six years as Erving Elementary School principal; she had over 30 years of prior public school service in other Massachusetts municipalities.
The Town of Erving previously voted to accept G. L. c. 32B and, in 2001, specifically accepted G. L. c. 32B, § 9E, which requires a municipality to pay more than 50% of retirees' group health insurance premiums and forbids different subsidiary rates for any group or class.
In 2006 the town adopted a retirement policy requiring employees to have at least 10 years of service with the town to be eligible for any town contribution toward post-retirement health insurance; employees with under 10 years could continue coverage only by paying 100% of premiums.
Galenski was informed of the policy before hire, was covered as an active employee, and upon retirement the town refused to contribute to her premiums because she had only six years with Erving; she paid full premiums and sued.
The Superior Court granted Galenski summary judgment declaring the town's policy invalid and enjoined enforcement; the town appealed and the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the town's 10‑year minimum service rule is consistent with G. L. c. 32B, § 9E	Galenski: § 9E mandates contribution for "employees retired from the service of the town" and forbids different rates by group or class; thus the town must contribute regardless of prior years with the town	Town: § 9E allows local regulation; Cioch permits municipalities to impose eligibility rules; the 10‑year rule reasonably furthers cost containment and is like pension service calculations	The 10‑year rule is invalid: it conflicts with § 9E's plain language requiring contribution for retirees and the prohibition on different subsidiary rates by group or class
Whether a municipality may create a subclass of retirees to deny contribution while having adopted § 9E	Galenski: Creating such a subclass is inconsistent with the statute's equal‑treatment mandate and comprehensive coverage scheme	Town: Municipalities have latitude under local option and home rule to adopt reasonable rules to contain costs	Court: Statutory mandate controls; municipality may not enact policies inconsistent with G. L. c. 32B, and the policy unlawfully creates unequal treatment
Whether Cioch v. Treasurer of Ludlow supports the town's policy	Galenski: Cioch is distinguishable because it upheld an enrollment‑while‑active rule, not a rule denying mandated contributions to otherwise covered retirees	Town: Cioch shows municipalities may adopt rules limiting retiree coverage eligibility	Court: Cioch is distinguishable; it did not permit rules that deny statutorily required continued contributions under § 9E
Whether home‑rule or cost concerns permit the town to exceed § 9E's limits	Galenski: Home rule cannot override inconsistent state statute; Legislature provided alternate cost‑allocation tool (§ 9A½) for multi‑employer careers	Town: Home‑rule and cost containment justify the town's policy	Court: Home rule cannot conflict with state law; cost concerns must be addressed to the Legislature; § 9A½ addresses reimbursement between employers

Key Cases Cited

Connors v. Boston, 430 Mass. 31 (municipal acceptance of local‑option statute makes its provisions exclusive mechanism for providing group insurance)
Cioch v. Treasurer of Ludlow, 449 Mass. 690 (municipal rules limiting retiree enrollment while not inconsistent with statute upheld; distinguishable here)
McDonald v. Town Manager of Southbridge, 39 Mass. App. Ct. 479 (employees covered automatically unless they opt out; local option governs continued retiree coverage)
Somerville v. Commonwealth Employment Relations Bd., 470 Mass. 563 (discussion of § 9E subsidiary or additional rate concept)
Swampscott Educ. Ass'n v. Swampscott, 391 Mass. 864 (equal treatment requirement when municipality voluntarily pays more than statutory minimum)
Adams v. Boston, 461 Mass. 602 (once municipality accepts a local‑option statute, it must comply with statute's unambiguous mandates)