Retirement Board of Stoneham v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board
476 Mass. 130
Mass.2016Background
- Christine DeFelice worked part-time for the Stoneham school department beginning in 2000; in spring 2001 she temporarily increased her hours for nine weeks to over 30 hours/week and later remained part-time (≈19.5 hrs/wk).
- In 2009 DeFelice applied for retroactive membership in Stoneham’s municipal contributory retirement system based on the nine-week period in 2001 when she worked >30 hrs/week.
- The Stoneham retirement board originally denied, then granted retroactive membership for the nine-week period but refused membership for the subsequent years when DeFelice continued as a lower‑hour part‑time employee.
- DeFelice appealed to the Contributory Retirement Appeal Board (CRAB) / DALA, which held the board could not revoke membership once granted; CRAB affirmed DALA’s decision.
- The Superior Court reversed CRAB; the Supreme Judicial Court reviewed de novo, granted CRAB deference, and reversed the Superior Court, affirming CRAB.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DeFelice) | Defendant's Argument (Retirement Bd.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a municipal retirement board may revoke membership of a non‑full‑time employee after granting it | Board cannot unilaterally terminate membership once conferred; §3(1)(a)(i) limits termination to statutorily listed events | Board's "full jurisdiction" under §3(2)(d) overeligibility includes continuing power to remove members who no longer meet local eligibility rules | Held for DeFelice: board may determine initial eligibility but cannot revoke membership once conferred absent a statutory termination event |
| Whether ceasing one of two part‑time jobs (reducing hours) constitutes a "separation from service" (e.g., "removal or discharge") under §3(1)(a)(i) | Stopping the second job did not terminate her service; she remained "in service" with the same municipal employer | Stopping the second job was a "removal" supporting termination of membership | Held for DeFelice: no effective separation from service occurred; "removal" without a separation from service does not end member‑in‑service status |
Key Cases Cited
- Rotondi v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 463 Mass. 644 (de novo review on statutory interpretation)
- Rosing v. Teachers' Retirement Sys., 458 Mass. 283 (statutory interpretation principles)
- Manning v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 29 Mass. App. Ct. 253 (non‑full‑time employee not a member absent board determination)
- Galenski v. Erving, 471 Mass. 305 (municipality cannot enact rules inconsistent with state law)
- Lexington Educ. Ass'n v. Lexington, 15 Mass. App. Ct. 749 (municipal eligibility rules cannot conflict with statutory mandates)
- Retirement Bd. of Attleboro v. School Comm. of Attleboro, 417 Mass. 24 (construction of "removal or discharge" in a different statutory context)
- Foresta v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 453 Mass. 669 (standard to reverse CRAB only for legal error or lack of substantial evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Raposo, 453 Mass. 739 (harmonious reading of statutory provisions)