Hairston-Brown v. Public School Employees' Retirement Board
78 A.3d 720
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- Dr. Dorothy June Hairston‑Brown (Claimant) was a longtime PSERS participant who retired in 1993, later reenrolled through charter‑school employment, and retired again effective December 1, 2008.
- From 2004–2008 Claimant was reported by two charter employers (Laboratory and Ad Prima) as a full‑time, salaried employee and PSERS initially calculated benefits based on those reports.
- PSERS staff (Peechatka) reviewed public records and other documents and concluded Claimant simultaneously provided services to additional entities (Agora, Planet Abacus, Cynwyd, AcademicQuest, Main Line), raising overlap concerns; PSERS adjusted Claimant’s recorded service and greatly reduced her pension.
- Claimant appealed; ESRC and a Hearing Officer upheld PSERS’ adjustments, finding insufficient credible evidence that Claimant actually worked the full‑time hours reported solely for Laboratory and Ad Prima.
- The Board adopted the Hearing Officer’s decision; Claimant appealed to this Court raising five issues including enforcement of stipulations, sufficiency of evidence, allocation of recordkeeping burden, and due‑process challenges to PSERS’ procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether Board had to adopt parties’ stipulations and award one year credited service per school year | Stipulations show Claimant was hired full‑time, reported as working ~260 days each year, paid full‑time salary and made contributions; that establishes one year credit under statute/regulation | Stipulations reflect what employers reported, not the number of days Claimant actually worked; Board must determine actual service when records conflict | Board: Stipulations did not compel credit; Court affirmed Board may decide actual hours worked and was not bound to grant one year credit |
| 2. Sufficiency of evidence for Board’s reduction of credited service | Claimant: Form 990s and testimonial evidence supported full‑time service for Laboratory and Ad Prima; PSERS produced no definitive documentary rebuttal | PSERS: additional documents (Smoot letter, other records) and testimony showed blended work across entities and lack of objective proof of hours for each employer; Claimant failed to prove hours | Board’s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence; Court affirmed |
| 3. Who bears burden to account for hours when reported service is questioned | Claimant: employers are statutorily responsible to keep/report service records; therefore employers (not Claimant) should bear duty to prove allocation | PSERS/Board: when records suggest overlap, PSERS must correct records under statute; member bears burden to ensure PSERS records are accurate before retirement | Court: Board reasonably required Claimant to establish the allocation of her hours once overlap was shown; no error |
| 4. Whether ESRC/Peechatka impermissibly commingled prosecutorial and adjudicative functions violating due process | Claimant: Peechatka and ESRC participated in investigatory/prosecutorial roles and then in adjudicatory review, creating bias or appearance of bias under Lyness | Board: ESRC handles nonadjudicatory appeals; Lyness (disciplinary context) is distinguishable; any staff involvement was not in the Board’s adjudicatory phase and Claimant had opportunity to be heard | No due‑process violation found; any commingling was nonprejudicial and subject to judicial review |
| 5. Whether reversal of initial benefit without prior notice/hearing violated due process | Claimant: retirement benefits are property and initial benefit reduction required predeprivation notice and hearing | Board: Claimant waived this issue below; also PSERS’ initial calculations are staff actions subject to further review and Claimant received full appellate review (hearings and appeals) before final decision | Court: issue waived; in any event, Claimant received notice and post‑deprivation hearings; no due‑process violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoerner v. Pub. Sch. Employees’ Ret. Bd., 684 A.2d 112 (Pa. 1996) (Board determines whether employee actually engaged in work for retirement credit)
- Harasty v. Pub. Sch. Employees’ Ret. Bd., 945 A.2d 783 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (standard for substantial‑evidence review)
- Lyness v. State Bd. of Medicine, 605 A.2d 1204 (Pa. 1992) (impermissible commingling of prosecutorial and adjudicative functions)
- Wyland v. Pub. Sch. Employees’ Ret. Bd., 669 A.2d 1098 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (initial staff determinations are subject to further review; no separate predeprivation hearing required before final PSERS determination)