REGINA TASCA VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, POLICE AND FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM (POLICE AND FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM)
202 A.3d 663
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2019Background
- Regina Tasca worked as a special police officer (PERS) 1995–2001, joined Bogota PD and PFRS on February 1, 2001 after transferring six years of PERS service credit to PFRS (her PFRS statements show an enrollment date of Jan. 1, 1995).
- N.J.S.A. 43:16A-5(3) (effective Jan. 18, 2000) grants a 50% early retirement allowance to any PFRS “member” as of that effective date who has 20+ years’ creditable service at retirement.
- Tasca was terminated in 2012, litigated, then settled with Bogota in Nov. 2015: she would retire effective Dec. 31, 2015; the settlement assumed she was eligible for 20-year (early) PFRS benefits.
- Before signing, Tasca checked with PFRS; a counselor (after supervisor review) told her on Dec. 14, 2015 she was ineligible for early retirement because she was not a PFRS member on Jan. 18, 2000; she could not obtain benefits until age 55.
- Division and Board denied Tasca’s application: although transferred service gave her 20+ years at retirement, she was not a PFRS "member" on Jan. 18, 2000. Tasca appealed; the Appellate Division affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statutory eligibility under N.J.S.A. 43:16A-5(3) | Tasca: transferred PERS service backdated enrollment (Jan. 1, 1995) means she has 20+ years and qualifies for early retirement | Board/Division: statute requires actual PFRS "member" status on Jan. 18, 2000; Tasca did not join PFRS until Feb. 1, 2001 | Held: statute’s plain language requires membership on Jan. 18, 2000; Tasca ineligible despite transferred service credit |
| Equitable estoppel against PFRS | Tasca: relied on PFRS statements and counselor remarks over years and detrimentally retired/settled | Board: estoppel is disfavored against government; no authoritative PFRS approval or binding representations; no manifest injustice shown | Held: estoppel not available here; record lacks a binding misrepresentation or manifest injustice to warrant estoppel against the Board |
| Settlement/public-policy effect | Tasca: settlement with Bogota assumed eligibility; public policy favors enforcing settlements | Board: Board is not a party to the settlement and cannot grant benefits contrary to statute | Held: settlement enforcement between parties stands, but does not compel Board to award benefits inconsistent with law |
| Board bound by parties’ agreement | Tasca: settlement required Bogota to take steps to effectuate pension | Board: not a party; cannot be bound to confer benefits beyond statutory authority | Held: Board not bound; it correctly declined to grant benefits inconsistent with statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 192 N.J. 189 (court gives deference to agency interpretations when administering pension statutes)
- Piatt v. Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 443 N.J. Super. 80 (App. Div. 2015) (agencies administering pension statutes have specialized expertise meriting deference)
- Utley v. Bd. of Review, Dep't of Labor, 194 N.J. 534 (agency legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
- Mount v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 233 N.J. 402 (statutory interpretation of retirement benefits reviewed de novo)
- Knorr v. Smeal, 178 N.J. 169 (equitable estoppel elements and duty of fair dealing)
- Skulski v. Nolan, 68 N.J. 179 (equitable considerations where pension awards were initially granted then discontinued)
- Sellers v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 399 N.J. Super. 51 (App. Div. 2008) (limits of estoppel claims when seeking to bind a state retirement board)