McNamara v. City of Nashua
629 F.3d 92
1st Cir.2011Background
- McNamara was suspended for sexual harassment in Aug 2000 and discharged Oct 2000; settled grievance in Mar 2001.
- Settlement required removal of harassment from file, limited reentry to stations, allowed resignation Feb 2001, and wage/overtime waiver through Feb 4, 2001.
- City committed to coordinate with NHRS to preserve McNamara’s pension and benefits; McNamara claimed pension would be maintained in full and continue in service until pension began.
- McNamara signed general release May 10, 2001 acknowledging waiver of all claims related to suspension.
- Pension payments began Aug 2001 from NHRS; City amended the retirement date to June 20, 2001 in Nov 2001 without changing pay.
- McNamara sued City in Aug 2008, alleging underpayment of pension and related coercion/fraud in settlement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of contract and related claims | McNamara argues claims tolled by discovery rules and installment theory. | City asserts contract claims accrued at mispayment and on signing the release; discovery does not save time. | Discovery rule applies; claims barred by statute unless timely. |
| Application of discovery rule to NHRS pension underpayment | Underpayment should be discoverable when first pension received or underpayment evident. | Claimant knew or should have known August 2001; discovery rule applies, limiting to three years. | Discovery rule applied; suit time-barred for underpayment after 2001. |
| Whether installment-contract rule applies to pension underpayments | Pension installments could create ongoing, separate claims. | Installment rule not applicable to a single miscalculation event with continuing effects. | Installment rule not controlling; miscalculation treated as single event. |
| Continuing violation theory | City had continuing obligation to McNamara post-settlement. | Any obligation arose before August 2001; no ongoing violation after. | No continuing violation; actions post-2001 not a new violation. |
| Coercion and fraudulent inducement theories | Settlement coerced McNamara and misrepresented pension consequences. | Coercion occurred at or before signing; undisclosed facts do not create new claims. | Coercion/misrepresentation claims time-barred by discovery rule. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gen. Theraphysical, Inc. v. Dupuis, 118 N.H.277 (N.H. 1978) (installment contract rule applies per installment payments)
- Miele v. Pension Plan of N.Y. State Teamsters Conference Pension & Ret. Fund, 72 F.Supp.2d 88 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) (one-time miscalculation not treated as separate monthly installments)
- Jensen v. Frank, 912 F.2d 517 (1st Cir. 1990) (continuing violation concept is limited and not applicable here)
- Ariadne Fin. Servs. Pty. Ltd. v. United States, 133 F.3d 874 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (continuing effects doctrine discussed)
- Perez v. Pike Indus., Inc., 889 A.2d 27 (N.H. 2005) (reasonably diligent plaintiff discovery standard in NH)