Kennebec County v. Maine Public Employees Retirement System
86 A.3d 1204
Me.2014Background
- Kennebec County, a PLD in MPERS since 1951, challenged a Board decision requiring back contributions for employees informed of MPERS eligibility long after hire.
- MPERS and Board concluded County had authority to adjudicate inadequate hire-notice claims and ordered back contributions with interest.
- Court held MPERS/Board lacked statutory authority to decide inadequate-hire notices and vacated the judgment.
- Employees were not MPERS members at the time of the alleged notice failure, so Board lacked jurisdiction over enrollment elections long before membership.
- Statutes allocate authority differently for PLDs that offer Social Security; here, 18252 governs, but 18252-A and 17103(6) do not extend to pre-membership notices for this County.
- Remand instructions directed dismissal for lack of jurisdiction; the dissent would reach merits on jurisdictional grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MPERS/Board have jurisdiction over pre-membership enrollment notices | Kennebec County argues Board authority to decide notices is lacking | MPERS contends Board can decide disputes about member elections | Board lacks jurisdiction; jurisdiction limited to members at issue or later joined members |
| Whether 18252-A(2)(C)-(D) applies to this County | County argues those provisions govern non-Social Security PLDs only | MPERS argues provisions apply to other PLDs and not to this County | 18252-A(C)-(D) do not apply to Kennebec; 18252 alone governs and provides no final adjudicatory role for Board here |
| Whether 17103(6) grants Board authority over all member-related matters | Board may adjudicate back-contribution disputes for members | Authority limited to those who are MPERS members at issue | Board authority limited to matters involving MPERS members; here employees were not members when notice occurred |
| What remedies exist for employees alleging inadequate hire-notice | Employees may pursue MPERS Board remedies | Remedies lie in employer administrative or bargaining channels | Employees may pursue administrative or bargaining remedies against employer; not via MPERS Board in this case |
Key Cases Cited
- Me. Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys. v. McClintock, 2010 ME 65 (Me. 2010) (standard of review for MPERS Board decisions in appellate capacity)
- Goodrich v. Me. Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys., 48 A.3d 212 (Me. 2012) (statutory interpretation deferential to agency where language is ambiguous)
- Me. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 27 v. Me. Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys., 983 A.2d 391 (Me. 2009) (administrative deference; board administration of retirement system)
- Aydelott v. City of Portland, 990 A.2d 1024 (Me. 2010) (statutory interpretation; avoid surplusage; distinguish sections)
- McPhee v. Me. State Ret. Sys., 980 A.2d 1257 (Me. 2009) (limits of executive director authority; Board review boundaries)
- City of Augusta v. Me. Labor Relations Bd., 70 A.3d 268 (Me. 2013) (administrative agency review standards and deference)