Piatt v. Police
| Decision Date | 18 November 2015 |
| Citation | 127 A.3d 716,443 N.J.Super. 80 |
| Parties | Casey PIATT, Bruce Davis, Tammy Davis, Michael Cortes, John R. Falzone, Madeline McKenzie, Terry Bowen, Fred Siena, Bruce Vanmeter, Kevin Carter, Mark Mezis, Steven Davis, Fred Pierce, Jr., Jonathan Jester, Vincent Woodruff, Edward Pompper, Robert Brobst, Chester Ogden, Brian Truxton, Dawn Cossaboon, Anthony Madden, James Ross, James Pittman, Jose L. DeLaTorre, John L. Murray, Gregory W. Williams, Dennis Turner, Geraldine Cox, Eva Sooy, Joseph Karkocha, Linda Scythes, Alice B. Poyntos, Charles Burkhart, Brian Horner, James Smith, Farzin Afsharkhah, Joseph Raws, Samuel Crowe, Chris Cline, Ray Dilks, Frank Spence, Robert W. Musso, Ronald Downs, Annie Street, Jere Griffith, Ricardo S. Basa, Billy Whildon, John Caldwell, Michelle Devito, Edmond Read, Michael Poloff, Edwin Diaz, Wayne Pearson, Clyde Koerner, Gwendolyn Street, Lorenzo L. Harris, Brian K. Hill, James H. Wilden, Jr., Darlene Holt, Edward C. LeMatty, III, Alfred Pierce, Richard Hawn, Angelo Galarza, Donnie Tomlin, Marvin L. Johnson, Bill Fowler, Jack B. Simpkins, Doug DelCollo, Ron Slade, Rick Robbins, William Whildin, Joe Camburn, Dan Hayes, Thomas Pluta, Mark Lattanzi, Michael Scates, Daniel Piatt, Chris Lee, L. Sanfilippo, Lawrence Duski, Dennis A. Gunn, Rigoberto Gonzalez, David Price, Pamela Brown–Dairsow, Patricia White, Randell Byers, Lisa Wright, Albert Rivera, James Harrold, George O. McConnell, Larry Saul, Glenn Chapman, Estte Kinzel, Robert Brenner, Israel Reyes, Edwin M. Zayas, Eveanne M. Stinson, and Frank Mantegna, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. POLICE AND FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM, New Jersey Department Of Corrections, and State of New Jersey, Defendants–Respondents. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Mario A. Iavicoli, Haddonfield, argued the cause for appellants.
Jeff S. Ignatowitz, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondents (John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney; Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Mr. Ignatowitz, on the brief).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
LEONE, J.A.D.
Plaintiffs are State corrections officers employed by defendants, the New Jersey Department of Corrections and the State of New Jersey (collectively “NJDOC”). NJDOC hired plaintiffs as corrections officers after they turned thirty-five years old. As a result, plaintiffs were enrolled in the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). Plaintiffs filed a complaint claiming they should be transferred to defendant, the Police and Firemen's Retirement System (PFRS), which has generally higher benefits but which also restricts initial enrollment to those not over thirty-five.
N.J.S.A. 43:16A–3; N.J.A.C. 17:4–2.5(a). Judge Phillip S. Carchman dismissed plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice.
Plaintiffs appeal, claiming that the PFRS thirty-five-year age limitation cannot be applied to State corrections officers. However, the long history of PFRS makes clear that the Legislature intends to restrict PFRS membership to a person who is “not over 35 years” when he or she becomes a “policeman” or “fireman.” N.J.S.A. 43:16A–3. The Legislature has expanded the definition of “policeman” to include a State corrections officer and, with only brief exceptions not applicable here, has mandated that they meet the age requirement for eligibility set for all PFRS members. That requirement serves the Legislature's goals of using PFRS's heightened benefits to encourage persons to become officers while young and relatively fit, and to retire at a relatively early age. Moreover, the PFRS Board, by regulation, has properly applied this construction of the PFRS Act for more than forty years. See N.J.A.C. 17:4–2.5(a). Finally, we reject plaintiffs' constitutional challenges for substantially the same reasons given by Judge Carchman. Accordingly, we affirm.
In 2003, plaintiff Casey Piatt and sixty-two other plaintiffs filed a complaint in federal district court, challenging the application of the age restriction to corrections officers under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 1001–1461, the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5–1 to –49, and contract law. Akers, et al. v. State of New Jersey, et al., Civ. No. 03–3920 (D.N.J.).1 The court dismissed Piatt's ERISA claim because ERISA did not apply to governmental pension plans, and dismissed without prejudice his remaining state-law claims. Ibid. (Aug. 26, 2005).2
In 2010, Piatt and ninety-seven other plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Law Division in Camden County. Plaintiffs complained that when they were hired as corrections officers by NJDOC, they were enrolled in PERS rather than PFRS because they exceeded the maximum age limit for admittance into PFRS. They claimed the age limit of thirty-five in N.J.S.A. 43:16A–3 and N.J.A.C. 17:4–2.5(a) did not apply to them and, even if it did, was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, void, and unconstitutional. They demanded they be transferred into PFRS retroactive to the first day of their employment, with no assessment of the additional contributions they would have paid if they had been in PFRS during that period.
After defendants answered the complaint, the action was transferred to Mercer County.3 Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment. Defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.
After hearing two days of oral argument, Judge Carchman issued a twenty-five-page oral opinion on May 29, 2013. In the course of his opinion, Judge Carchman pointed out that the pension benefits of PFRS are greater than those of PERS in part because employees must contribute more per paycheck to PFRS than PERS. The court found at least two reasons why the public interest would require corrections officers to be appointed before age thirty-five in order to enroll in PFRS:
First, restricting enrollment in this way benefits the public fiscally as fewer individuals are permitted to enroll, and secondly, and perhaps more importantly, this restriction benefits public safety as it provides an incentive for individuals to become corrections officers earlier in their career and to be able to retire earlier[,] allowing for what has been statistically established as a more fit and higher energy workforce.
By order dated June 5, 2013, Judge Carchman denied plaintiffs' motion, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
Plaintiffs appeal the grant of summary judgment. Summary judgment must be granted if the court determines “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment or order as a matter of law.” R. 4:46–2(c); accord Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 539–40, 666 A.2d 146 (1995). The summary judgment motions here addressed the applicability of the age limit in N.J.S.A. 43:16A–3, and the validity of the age limit in N.J.A.C. 17:4–2.5(a). or the validity of a regulation. Davis v. Brickman Landscaping, Ltd., 219 N.J. 395, 405, 98 A.3d 1173 (2014) (citations omitted). We must hew to that standard of review.
To properly address plaintiffs' claims, we review the statutory and regulatory history of the age limit, and of the inclusion of corrections officers as “policemen” under the PFRS Act, N.J.S.A. 43:16A–1 to –68.
The PFRS Act was originally adopted in 1944. L. 1944, c. 255. It established a retirement system “for policemen and firemen.” N.J.S.A. 43:16A–2. The PFRS Act originally required applicants to PFRS to be appointed to their position by age thirty. Seire v. Police & Fire Pension Comm'n, 6 N.J. 586, 590, 80 A.2d 97 (1951); Bashwiner v. Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 68 N.J.Super. 1, 5, 171 A.2d 331 (App.Div.1961). In 1968, that limit was raised to not over thirty-five years old. Simon v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 233 N.J.Super. 186, 190, 558 A.2d 490 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 117 N.J. 652, 569 A.2d 1348 (1989). Since 1968, the PFRS Act has provided that “any person becoming a full-time policeman or fireman ... shall become a member of this retirement system as a condition of his employment; he will be enrolled provided, that his age at becoming such full-time policeman or fireman is not over 35 years[.]” N.J.S.A. 43:16A–3(1).4
The PFRS Act allows the PFRS Board of Trustees to establish rules and regulations. N.J.S.A. 43:16A–13(a)(7). In 1971, the PFRS Board of Trustees adopted a regulation, entitled “age requirements,” providing that “[a]pplicants are subject to a maximum age requirement which is 35 years.” N.J.A.C. 17:4–2.5(a) (1971). Since 1983, the regulation has provided that all applicants to PFRS “must be appointed to an eligible title on or prior to their 35th birthday.” N.J.A.C. 17:4–2.5(a); see Sellers v. Bd. of Trs. of the Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 399 N.J.Super. 51, 53, 942 A.2d 870 (App.Div.2008) (applying N.J.A.C. 17:4–2.5(a)).
The Legislature repeatedly amended the definitions of “policeman” and “fireman” in N.J.S.A. 43:16A–1 to make additional titles covered by PFRS. Kossup v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 372 N.J.Super. 468, 475, 859 A.2d 721 (App.Div.2004). For many years, the definition of “policeman” did not include State corrections officers. See Koschker v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 233 N.J.Super. 209, 211, 558 A.2d 503 (App.Div.1989). The Legislature passed a supplementary act in 1973 allowing certain State corrections officers to enroll in PFRS by adding their titles to N.J.S.A. 43:16A–1. See id. at 212, 558 A.2d 503 (citing L. 1973, c. 156, § 1); Allen v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 233 N.J.Super. 197, 200, 558 A.2d 496 (App.Div.1989) (same). The 1973 supplementary...
To continue reading
Request your trial