Retirement Board v. Tyler
83 Mass. App. Ct. 109
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2013Background
- Anthony Tyler was a Maynard firefighter and EMT who sexually abused young boys over several years; victims were related to fellow Maynard firefighters.
- The town and department took no action initially; Tyler applied for and was granted retirement benefits in 2006.
- After notice of resolved charges, the Maynard retirement board suspended Tyler’s pension, citing a direct link between the crimes and his office.
- A district court reversed, reinstating benefits retroactively; the superior court later held there was a sufficient nexus to forfeit.
- G. L. c. 32, § 15(4) governs pension forfeiture for misconduct; the court must find a direct link between the criminal conduct and the member’s official duties.
- The court reverses, holding no direct link was shown since crimes occurred off-duty and not at the firehouse or using department power.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether convictions trigger pension forfeiture under § 15(4). | Tyler’s crimes violated duties and violated public trust. | Convictions must have a direct link to the office; not all crimes qualify. | No direct link; forfeiture not triggered. |
| Is a crime committed off-duty still within the statute’s reach if related to the position? | Crimes involving public trust affect the position. | Direct link must be established regardless of location. | Location alone does not satisfy direct link; not forfeited. |
| Can broader interpretations of § 15(4) justify forfeiture in this case? | The statute should apply to offenses affecting official duties. | Statutory text must be narrowly construed to require direct link. | Statute interpreted narrowly; no forfeiture. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gaffney v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 423 Mass. 1 (Mass. 1996) (holdings on direct link between offenses and office)
- State Bd. of Retirement v. Bulger, 446 Mass. 169 (Mass. 2006) (requires nexus between crime and the position)
- Herrick v. Essex Regional Retirement Bd., 77 Mass. App. Ct. 645 (Mass. App. Ct. 2010) (no direct link for custodian offenses)
- Scully v. Retirement Bd. of Beverly, 80 Mass. App. Ct. 538 (Mass. App. Ct. 2011) (offense not directly linked to library employee’s job)
- Collatos v. Boston Retirement Bd., 396 Mass. 684 (Mass. 1986) (establishes scope of direct link analysis)