Longley v. State Employees Retirement Com'n
Decision Date | 02 October 2007 |
Docket Number | No. 17617.,17617. |
Citation | 931 A.2d 890,284 Conn. 149 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | Donald M. LONGLEY et al. v. STATE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT COMMISSION. |
Daniel J. Klau, with whom was Richard F. Wareing and, on the brief, Joseph J. Chambers, Hartford, for the appellant (defendant).
Donald M. Longley, pro se, with whom was Richard K. Greenberg, pro se, the appellees (plaintiffs).
BORDEN, NORCOTT, PALMER, VERTEFEUILLE and SHELDON, Js.*
Under the State Employees Retirement Act (act), General Statutes § 5-152 et seq., state employees who retire after ten or more years of state service are entitled to retirement income based on the length of their state service and their "base salary," which is defined as the average annual salary that a retiree receives in his three highest paid years of state service. This certified appeal requires us to decide whether, under General Statutes §§ 5-1621 and 5-154,2 the dollar value of a lump sum payment to a state retiree for accrued, unused vacation time3 and the dollar value of the retiree's final, prorated longevity payment4 must be added directly to the salary that the retiree earned in his final year of state employment for the purpose of calculating his "base salary." The defendant, the state employees retirement commission (commission), appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court, claiming that that court incorrectly concluded that both the accrued vacation time payment and final longevity payment must be added to the annual salaries of the plaintiffs, Donald M. Longley and Richard K. Greenberg, in their final year of employment for the purpose of calculating their base salaries. We agree with the Appellate Court's treatment of the plaintiffs' final longevity payments but disagree with the Appellate Court's treatment of the plaintiffs' accrued vacation time payments. We therefore affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The opinion of the Appellate Court sets forth the following undisputed facts and procedural history. "Pursuant to the 2003 Early Retirement Incentive Program; [see] Public Acts 2003, No. 03-02[§ 6]; the plaintiffs, [both of whom are] former assistant attorneys general . . . retired from active employment with the state on June 1, 2003.5 Each retired as a vested Tier I, Plan B member of the state employees retirement system. Accordingly, the act and related statutes govern the calculation of their retirement benefits.
9 10 (Emphasis in original.) Longley v. State Employees Retirement Commission, 92 Conn.App. 712, 715-17, 887 A.2d 904 (2005).
In rejecting the claim that the plaintiffs' final, prorated longevity payments must be added to their salaries in their final year for the purpose of calculating their base salaries, the commission relied primarily on General Statutes § 5-213, which provides that a state employee is entitled to two lump sum longevity payments each year. The commission reasoned that adding the retiree's final, prorated longevity payment directly to the retiree's salary in his final year would be inconsistent with § 5-213 because that final prorated payment would represent a third longevity payment that the retiree would receive in a twelve month period. The commission further stated that the interpretation of the act that the plaintiffs advocated "would violate the express statutory mandate that the base salary consist of the three highest paid years of state service."
The plaintiffs appealed from the declaratory rulings of the commission to the trial court,11 which concluded that the commission's formula for computing retirement income was compelled by the plain language of the act. The trial court further explained that, even if the statutory scheme could be characterized as ambiguous, there were several considerations that supported the interpretation advanced by the commission. First, the trial court noted that the commission's formula took into account all of the provisions of the complex statutory scheme, whereas the plaintiffs' interpretation "ignore[d] the full logical implications of § 5-154(m), which provides that state service includes a period equivalent to accrued vacation time." (Emphasis in original.) In other words, as the Appellate Court explained, (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Longley v. State Employees Retirement Commission, supra, 92 Conn.App. at 720, 887 A.2d 904. In essence, therefore, the trial court concluded that the plaintiffs' interpretation of the statutory scheme failed to account for the statutory requirement that retirement income be calculated on the basis of the retiree's three highest paid years, not the three highest paid years plus the additional period attributable to any accrued, unused vacation time.
Second, the trial court concluded that the commission's interpretation was entitled to "some consideration" because the commission has been designated by the legislature to compute retirement income, and it has been doing so in a manner consistent with its declaratory rulings in the present case for a significant period of time. Finally, the trial court concluded that the commission's interpretation avoided the "bizarre results" that flowed from the approach advanced by the plaintiffs, namely, that two similarly situated retirees, one of whom has used all of his vacation time prior to retiring and one of whom has accumulated the maximum amount of unused vacation time, would be entitled to grossly disparate annual retirement benefits.12 The trial court observed that it was not likely that the legislature ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bouchard v. State Emps. Ret. Comm'n, SC 19754
...C.J., and Palmer, Eveleigh, McDonald, Robinson and Espinosa, Js.* McDONALD, J.In Longley v. State Employees Retirement Commission , 284 Conn. 149, 177–78, 931 A.2d 890 (2007), this court held that the defendant, the State Employees Retirement Commission, had improperly interpreted statutes ......
-
Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert
...of those statutes when that interpretation is both time-tested and reasonable. See, e.g., Longley v. State Employees Retirement Commission , 284 Conn. 149, 166, 931 A.2d 890 (2007). To the extent that the question requires us to interpret Title VII, some deference is likewise owed to the EE......
-
Curry v. Allan S. Goodman, Inc.
...Hartford v. Hartford Municipal Employees Assn., 259 Conn. 251, 262, 788 A.2d 60 (2002); see also Longley v. State Employees Retirement Commission, 284 Conn. 149, 164, 931 A.2d 890 (2007) ("this court has long adhered to the principle that when a `governmental agency's time-tested interpreta......
-
Abel v. Planning And Zoning Comm'n Of The Town Of New Canaan
... ... because their properties are not located in the state of Connecticut. The plaintiffs then filed these appeals ... Longley v. State Employees Retirement Commission, 284 Conn. 149, ... ...
-
2007 Developments in Connecticut Family Law
...Conn. App. 74 (2007)(antique store owner did not own a store's consignment inventory); Longley v. State Employees Retirement Commission, 284 Conn. 149 (2007)(defining "base salary" under the State Employees Retirement Act). 20. 280 Conn. 764 (2007). 21. Weinstein v. Weinstein, 104 Conn. App......