Posts tagged "Erving"

Galenski v. Town of Erving, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-067-15)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   SJC-11772   CHARLENE GALENSKI  vs.  TOWN OF ERVING & others.[1] Franklin.     January 6, 2015. – April 17, 2015.   Present:  Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, Hines, JJ.     Public Employment, Retirement benefits.  School and School Committee, Retirement benefits, Group insurance.  Municipal Corporations, Group insurance, Allocation of insurance premiums.  Insurance, Group, Premiums.  Retirement.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on November 21, 2012.   The case was heard by John A. Agostini, J., on motions for summary judgment.   The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court.     Patricia M. Rapinchuk for the defendants. Eric Lucentini (Sandra Lucentini with him) for the plaintiff.     DUFFLY, J.  Charlene Galenski retired in 2012 after six years of service as a school principal in the town of Erving (town); she previously had been a long-time public school teacher in other municipalities in the Commonwealth.  Galenski then sought continued health insurance coverage and contribution by the town to the cost of her group health insurance premiums.  In 2001, the town had voted to adopt G. L. c. 32B, § 9E, which required it to contribute over fifty per cent of the health insurance premiums of all of its retirees.  Before employing Galenski, however, the town had enacted a policy stating that it would contribute only to the group health insurance premiums of retired employees who had retired after a minimum of ten years of employment with the town.  Although Galenski was permitted to remain a member of the town’s group health insurance plan after she retired, the town determined she was not eligible for any contribution by the town to her health insurance premiums. Galenski filed a complaint in the Superior Court contending that the town had violated her right to payment by the town of a portion of her group medical insurance premiums, as required under G. L. c. 32B, § 9E; she sought declaratory and injunctive relief, and also raised a claim of estoppel based on detrimental reliance.  A judge of the Superior Court allowed Galenski’s motion for summary judgment on the first two claims, denied the town’s cross motion for summary judgment, and issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the town from enforcing its policy.[2]  The town appealed, and we transferred the case to this court on our own motion.  […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - April 17, 2015 at 10:35 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , ,