L. Volpe v. PSERB
1837 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Oct 24, 2017Background
- Louis Volpe retired from the School District of Philadelphia (SDP) effective July 11, 1998 after ~30 years and then returned to work part-time (~2 days/week) at SDP at SDP’s request beginning late August 1998 while continuing to receive PSERS pension payments through 2012.
- PSERS/PSERB later determined SDP’s hiring did not meet the statutory "emergency" standard in 24 Pa.C.S. § 8346(b), rescinded Volpe’s retirement, required repayment of benefits, and recalculated his annuity upon re-retirement in 2012.
- Volpe appealed through PSERS administrative process; a Hearing Officer found no emergency (adopting a definition of “emergency” as sudden/unforeseen requiring immediate action), denied a discretionary waiver under 24 Pa.C.S. § 8303.1(a), and set Volpe’s return-to-service date as August 26, 1998. PSERB adopted that recommendation.
- On judicial review, the Commonwealth Court affirmed that PSERS has authority to review an employer’s emergency determination and that substantial evidence supported the no-emergency finding, but found errors in PSERB’s waiver-of-adjustment analysis.
- The Court vacated PSERB’s denial of a waiver under § 8303.1(a) and remanded for a new determination limited to the waiver issue (including possible partial waiver for earlier years).
Issues
| Issue | Volpe's Argument | PSERB's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PSERS may review an employer’s determination that a post-retirement hire was made due to an "emergency" under § 8346(b) | Employer’s judgment is final; SDP’s finding should control | PSERS must review to protect fund solvency and fulfill fiduciary duty | PSERS has authority to review employer determinations (Baillie controlling) |
| Whether Volpe’s return constituted an "emergency" under § 8346(b) | Retirement was genuine; SDP urgently needed Volpe’s expertise for large bond issuance and continuing operations — a pressing need qualifies | SDP had notice of the retirement; non‑immediate response and lack of succession planning show absence of the sudden/unforeseen emergency required by PSERB’s interpretation | Substantial evidence supports PSERB/Hearing Officer that no emergency existed (definition: sudden/unexpected requiring immediate action) |
| Whether PSERB should waive the adjustment under § 8303.1(a) (undue hardship; no erroneous info by member; no prior knowledge; no reasonable grounds to believe info incorrect) | Volpe: PSERS’ materials did not require him to notify PSERS of return; PSERS’ communications created a gap and erroneous impression that pension would be unaffected; he relied on that to his detriment | PSERB: Volpe had notice (2000 Handbook reservation); he should have inquired; prolonged post-retirement work undermines waiver | Denial vacated and remanded: Court found errors in PSERB’s third and fourth-prong analysis (notice and reasonable-ground timing) and ordered reconsideration, including potential partial waiver for earlier years |
| Whether equitable estoppel bars PSERB from correcting the error | Volpe: He reasonably relied on SDP/PSERS communications for ~14 years; estoppel should apply | PSERB: Must correct errors under statutory duty; estoppel cannot override positive law | Estoppel unavailable because PSERB is duty‑bound to correct errors under statute; remand limited to waiver inquiry rather than estoppel relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Baillie v. Public School Employees’ Retirement Board, 993 A.2d 944 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (PSERS has authority to review employer determinations of emergency)
- White v. Public School Employees’ Retirement Board, 11 A.3d 1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (waiver under § 8303.1(a) requires meeting all four enumerated elements)
- Cannonie v. Public School Employees’ Retirement System, 952 A.2d 706 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (PSERB is duty‑bound to correct mistakes and is not estopped from doing so)