Miller v. State Employees Retirement System, 137 A.3d 674

Kenneth N. Miller retired as a Magisterial District Judge effective January 2, 2006 and began receiving SERS retirement benefits; he later applied for and was appointed as a Senior Magisterial District Judge and served on a per diem basis.
Between March 2006 and December 2012 Miller received multiple temporary Supreme Court appointments as a senior judge and sat on the Philadelphia Traffic Court on numerous days; he remained eligible for assignment until suspended.
In December 2011 Miller mailed a traffic citation to a Traffic Court administrator asking it be handled favorably for a court clerk’s son; he followed up by phone in February 2012 and was told the citation was dismissed.
Miller pled guilty to one count of federal mail fraud on February 12, 2013; the Court of Judicial Discipline suspended him from senior judge duties on February 4, 2013.
SERS notified Miller it forfeited his pension under the Public Employee Pension Forfeiture Act (Act 140); Miller appealed to the SERS Board, which denied relief, and Miller appealed to the Commonwealth Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Act 140 applies when offender is not an active employee/judge at time of misconduct	Miller: he was not actively serving as a judge during the misconduct period, so Act 140 should not apply	SERS: Miller remained a public official/employee by virtue of SERS membership, receipt of pension, and status as a Senior MDJ	Court: Miller was a public official/employee when misconduct occurred because he retained senior judge status via Supreme Court appointments; Act 140 applies
Whether forfeiture violates Eighth/Fourteenth Amendments and PA Const. art. I, § 13 as an excessive fine/punishment	Miller: forfeiture is punitive because no active contract existed at misconduct time, so Excessive Fines Clause applies	SERS: forfeiture is contractual (breach) consequence, not a punitive fine	Court: Forfeiture is a contractual consequence (renewed appointment agreement); Excessive Fines Clause not implicated; constitutional challenge rejected

Shiomos v. Pennsylvania State Employees’ Retirement Board, 626 A.2d 158 (Pa. 1993) (each appointment renews the employment agreement and subjects benefits to Act 140)
Sandusky v. Pennsylvania State Employees’ Retirement Board, 127 A.3d 34 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (Act 140 requires the employee be a public employee/official when the misconduct occurred)
Public School Employees’ Retirement Board v. Matthews, 806 A.2d 971 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (Act 140 mandates forfeiture when employee commits a forfeitable offense; does not resolve which employment controls)
Scarantino v. Public School Employees’ Retirement Fund, 68 A.3d 375 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (forfeiture under Act 140 is contractual breach, not an Eighth Amendment excessive fine)