» Employee

Posts tagged "Employee"

Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-027-18)

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-12331 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT ADMINISTRATION COMMISSION vs. CONTRIBUTORY RETIREMENT APPEAL BOARD & others.[1] Suffolk. November 6, 2017. – February 13, 2018. Present: Gants, C.J., Gaziano, Lowy, Budd, & Cypher, JJ. Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board. Retirement. Public Employment, Retirement, Sick leave benefits, Vacation pay, Worker’s compensation. Words, “Regular compensation.” Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on May 14, 2015. The case was heard by Peter M. Lauriat, J., on motions for judgment on the pleadings. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. Judith A. Corrigan, Special Assistant Attorney General, for the plaintiff. Michael Sacco for retirement board of Swampscott. CYPHER, J. The plaintiff, the Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission (PERAC), appeals from a Superior Court judge’s decision affirming a determination by the Contributory Retirement Appeal Board (CRAB) that sick or vacation payments, when used to supplement workers’ compensation payments, are not “regular compensation” as defined in G. L. c. 32, § 1. PERAC argues that CRAB’s decision is incorrect as a matter of law. We disagree, and for the following reasons we affirm the decision of the Superior Court judge. Background. The relevant facts are not in dispute. From September 30, 1985, to July 7, 2012, Robert Vernava worked for the town of Swampscott’s department of public works. On June 13, 2010, Vernava sustained injuries while performing job-related duties. He began receiving workers’ compensation benefits the same day. In addition to the workers’ compensation benefits, under G. L. c. 152, § 69, Vernava also received two hours per week of sick or vacation pay (supplemental pay) in order to maintain his union membership and life insurance.[2] Pursuant to G. L. c. 32, § 7, on February 1, 2012, the town of Swampscott filed an application seeking to retire Vernava involuntarily for accidental disability. On June 28, 2012, the retirement board of Swampscott (board) approved the application and voted to involuntarily retire Vernava due to accidental disability. Vernava received his workers’ compensation benefits and supplemental pay until July 7, 2012. Under G. L. c. 32, § 7 (2), the effective date of an employee’s accidental disability retirement is the latest of the following: (1) “the date the injury was sustained;” (2) “the date […]

Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission v. Bettencourt (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-047-16)

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-11906 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT ADMINISTRATION COMMISSION vs. EDWARD A. BETTENCOURT. Suffolk. October 6, 2015. – April 6, 2016. Present (Sitting at New Bedford): Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ. Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission. Retirement. Public Employment, Retirement benefits, Forfeiture of retirement benefits. Constitutional Law, Excessive fines clause. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on December 19, 2012. The case was heard by Garry V. Inge, J., on motions for judgment on the pleadings. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. Paul T. Hynes (Michael R. Keefe with him) for the defendant. Peter Sacks, State Solicitor (Judith A. Corrigan, Special Assistant Attorney General, with him) for the plaintiff. Ian O. Russell & Patrick N. Bryant for Massachusetts Coalition of Police, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. BOTSFORD, J. The Commonwealth’s law governing public employee retirement systems and pensions requires that a public employee forfeit the retirement and health insurance benefits (retirement allowance or pension) to which the employee would be entitled upon conviction of a crime “involving violation of the laws applicable to [the employee’s] office or position.” G. L. c. 32, § 15 (4) (§ 15 [4]).[1] We consider here whether this mandatory forfeiture of a public employee’s retirement allowance qualifies as a “fine” under the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We conclude that it does and that, in the circumstances of this case, the mandatory forfeiture of the public employee’s retirement allowance is “excessive.”[2] Background.[3] Edward A. Bettencourt was first appointed as a police officer in the city of Peabody in October, 1980, and became a member of the Peabody retirement system on November 7, 1982.[4] Bettencourt was promoted to the rank of sergeant around 1990, and promoted again to serve as a lieutenant in 2003. In the early morning hours of December 25, 2004, Bettencourt was on duty as a watch commander, and he knowingly accessed, through theInternet and without permission, the Massachusetts human resources division (HRD) computer system, and specifically the HRD Internet site containing individual applicant record information. Gaining the unauthorized access, he viewed the civil service promotional examination scores of twenty-one other police officers, including four officers who were his direct competitors […]

Patch Employee Detained in Search for Bomb Suspect

Patch Associate Regional Ad Director Al Wilson was detained by police while returning to his home in Watertown on Thursday night. Here, he explains what happened: Q: What were you doing on Thursday night when this all happened? A: I had driven back from a business trip for Patch from Southern New Jersey, returning to Watertown at 9 p.m. I went into my house and had done some work on my computer before going back outside to fetch a suitcase from my car. Two loud explosions suddenly sounded somewhere behind my house. In between explosions was a series of gunshots. There was then perhaps a 10 second gap before 30 to 40 shots were fired in quick succession. Then all was quiet. Q: What did you do next? A: I climbed into the car and instead of going back to the house (toward where the explosion and gunfire seemed to be coming from), I drove the opposite direction in my rental car, turned left on Mt. Auburn from Bailey and away from the scene. I had made it perhaps 200 yards or less on Mt. Auburn when 40 or so state and local police cars came up Mt. Auburn. I slowed and pulled to the right shoulder of the road. All of the police took a right onto a side street in front of my car with lights flashing but no sirens. So many pulled onto the side street that they were lined up as far as you could see. The whole side street was blocked (from top to bottom). In quick succession, all cars shut their lights off. I believe police stayed in these vehicles. Q: You must have been terrified. What did you do next? A: I then pulled away and continued another 100 yards before several more groups of police raced up the road. I estimate they were doing 100 mph-plus and in close proximity to each other. Several police pulled across Mt. Auburn and raced from their vehicles, leaving cars in the road. I pulled over onto a side street to my left (off Mt. Auburn) and parked the car. I sat in car for some time, hearing sirens and straining engines from cars under hard acceleration. Q: At this point did things start to calm down a bit? A: At some point I thought things had been quiet for some time, and I decided to quickly walk the 300 yards or so back to my house. I left the vehicle on the side street and ran along far right side of Mt. Auburn toward my house. I had made it approximately 100 yards or so when […]