Rosing v. Teachers' Retirement System
458 Mass. 283
Mass.2010Background
- Retired teachers who are Commonwealth Teachers’ Retirement System members sought to purchase creditable service for pre-1973 nonpublic school work with students with special needs funded by the Commonwealth, where they had earned Social Security benefits.
- G. L. c. 32, § 4(1)(p) excludes credit if the member is entitled to a retirement allowance, annuity or pension from any other source; board had denied based on Social Security benefits as the 'other source'.
- From 1975 to 2004, the board and CRAB interpreted § 4(1)(p) to permit credit purchase regardless of Social Security eligibility; Attorney General opinion in 1975 did not view Social Security as the excluded category.
- In 2004, the board reversed its interpretation; CRAB later determined the board’s 2004 interpretation erroneous in Sigman v. Teachers’ Retirement Sys. (2008).
- Plaintiffs challenged the board’s long-standing interpretation, seeking de novo judicial review of the agency’s legal determination.
- Statutory comparison shows § 3(4A) (pre-1973 nonpublic school service) uses different exclusion language than § 4(1)(p); text does not treat Social Security as within § 4(1)(p)’s exclusion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Social Security benefits covered by § 4(1)(p) exclusion? | Social Security benefits are not within the exclusion; § 4(1)(p) uses broader terms not referencing Social Security. | Social Security benefits constitute a retirement allowance from any other source and therefore fall within the exclusion. | No; Social Security benefits are not covered by § 4(1)(p) exclusion. |
| Was the board's 2004 interpretation of § 4(1)(p) erroneous given long-standing practice? | Long-standing practice permitted purchase irrespective of Social Security; 2004 change was error. | Board acted to align with statutory language and case law; change was reasonable. | Yes; the 2004 interpretation was erroneous; long-standing practice did not require exclusion of Social Security. |
| Should § 4(1)(p) be read in harmony with § 3(4A) to require identical exclusions? | Flaherty and Dube guidance does not mandate identical exclusions; statutes differ in language and context. | Courts should harmonize provisions to create a consistent framework. | No; differences in language reflect legislative intent to treat provisions differently. |
| Does legislative intent support changing the interpretation or preserving the long-standing view? | Legislature should address change; the longstanding interpretation warrants continuation absent legislative action. | Legislature could modify but may not be obligated to; judiciary can correct misinterpretations. | Change is for the Legislature; preserved unless amended. |
| What standard of review applies to an agency legal interpretation here? | De novo review appropriate for pure questions of law; agency interpretation should be reconsidered. | Administrative construction, especially long-standing, may have weight if reasonable. | De novo review applies; the board's interpretation was not reasonable given the statutory language. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wellington v. Commissioner of Corps. & Taxation, 359 Mass. 448 (Mass. 1971) (administrative interpretation can gain significance if long-standing)
- Mullally v. Waste Mgt. of Mass., Inc., 452 Mass. 526 (Mass. 2008) (long-standing administrative interpretation carries weight)
- Roberts v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. of Boston, 438 Mass. 187 (Mass. 2002) (statutory interpretation should avoid rendering terms meaningless)
- Kennedy v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 47 Mass. App. Ct. 425 (Mass. App. Ct. 1999) (illustrates harmony-and-difference approach in related provisions)
- Flaherty v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 48 Mass. App. Ct. 132 (Mass. App. Ct. 1999) (read related provisions in harmony when language identical)