State Emps. Ass'n of N.H. v. N.H. Div. of Pers.
Decision Date | 18 February 2009 |
Docket Number | No. 2008–257.,2008–257. |
Citation | 158 N.H. 338,965 A.2d 1116 |
Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, SEIU, LOCAL 1984 and another. v. NEW HAMPSHIRE DIVISION OF PERSONNEL. |
Molan, Milner & Krupski, PLLC, of Concord (Glenn R. Milner on the brief and orally), for the petitioners.
Kelly A. Ayotte, attorney general (Michael K. Brown, senior assistant attorney general, on the memorandum of law and orally), for the respondent.
The petitioners, the State Employees Association of New Hampshire, SEIU, Local 1984 (SEA), William E. Evans and John R. Bush, appeal an order of the Superior Court (Conboy, J.) ruling that service credit purchased pursuant to RSA 100–A:4, VII (Supp.2006) (repealed 2007) does not qualify for determining eligibility for medical benefits coverage under RSA 21–I:30 (Supp.2008). We affirm.
The facts in this case are not in dispute. The petitioners are two state employees and the SEA, which describes itself as "a voluntary labor organization and the exclusive representative for more than 10,000 state employees who are eligible to receive certain retirement benefits from the [New Hampshire Retirement System (NHRS) ]." The two individual petitioners, Evans and Bush, are apparently group I members of NHRS. Group I members are "employees and teachers," RSA 100–A:1, X(a) (2001), terms further defined in RSA 100–A:1, V and VI (Supp.2008). The other classification of state employees referred to in this opinion is group II, whose members are "permanent policemen and permanent firemen," RSA 100–A:1, X(b) (2001), categories further defined and delineated in RSA 100–A:1, VII (Supp.2008), VII-a (Supp.2008), VII-b (2001) and VIII (2001). For reasons explained below, this decision concerns only the benefits available to some group I members.
The respondent, the New Hampshire Division of Personnel (division), is a division established within the department of administrative services, an agency of the state. RSA 21–I:1, :42 (Supp.2008). The division is charged with, among other things, "[o]verseeing administration of all employee benefit programs other than those related to the [NHRS]." RSA 21–I:42, VIII.
Two types of state employee benefits are relevant to the instant action: retirement allowances payable by NHRS pursuant to RSA chapter 100–A (2001 & Supp.2008), and "group hospitalization, hospital medical care, surgical care and other medical benefits," RSA 21–I:30, I, provided to state employees, state retirees and certain of their family members pursuant to RSA 21–I:26 to :36 (2000 & Supp.2008). Both statutory schemes use some form of the term "creditable service" to calculate various benefits or to define eligibility for them. For instance, RSA 100–A:5, I(b) (2001) provides that the service retirement allowance payable thereunder to group I employee or teacher members is equal to a certain percentage of "the member's average final compensation multiplied by the number of years of creditable service."
RSA 21–I:30, which directs the state to pay a premium "toward group hospitalization, hospital medical care, surgical care and other medical benefits plan or a self-funded alternative" for, inter alia, retired employees of the state, uses a similar phrase to define that term. RSA 21–I:30 provides, in part:
RSA chapter 100–A also offers limited opportunities for certain members to purchase credit for service rendered for public employers other than the State of New Hampshire, or for certain breaks in service. See, e.g., RSA 100–A:4, VI (Supp.2008) (allowing purchase of credit for active service in the United States armed services); :4, VIII (Supp.2008) (allowing purchase of service credit following break in service to join Peace Corps or AmeriCorps); RSA 100–A:4–b (Supp.2008) (allowing certain group I members to purchase credit for out-of-state service); RSA 100–A:4–c (Supp.2008) (allowing certain group II members to purchase credit for out-of-state service). In 2006, the legislature enacted RSA 100–A:4, VII, which, until its repeal in 2007, allowed certain members of the retirement system to purchase up to five years additional credit. Specifically, RSA 100–A:4, VII provided:
On October 20, 2006, the division issued Personnel Memorandum 07–01 "to clarify whether the purchase of nonqualified service credit [under RSA 100–A:4, VII] impacts eligibility for state-paid retiree health benefits pursuant to RSA 21–I:30." The memorandum notes that the question is only relevant to group I members because RSA 21–I:30 does not tie the eligibility of group II members to years of creditable service. With respect to group I members, the memorandum states:
The language in RSA [21–I:30] requires a retiring Group I employee, in addition to meeting a number of other specified conditions, to have a certain number of years of "creditable service for the state" to qualify for the health care benefit. Nonqualified, non-state service is not "creditable service for the state" and for this reason, the purchase of nonqualified service credit would not count toward determining the eligibility of a Group I member for the state-paid retiree health benefit.
The petitioners brought the instant action seeking, inter alia, a declaratory judgment "that creditable service purchase[d] by a state employee pursuant to [ RSA 100–A:4, VII] can be utilized for purposes of determining eligibility as a retired employee pursuant to RSA 21–I:30." (Emphasis omitted.) The division filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court treated as a motion for summary judgment and granted. The court found the term "creditable service for the state" ambiguous and looked to legislative history to decipher its meaning. The court "acknowledge[d] that the language of RSA 100–A:4, VII is not a model of clarity," and found no indication in the legislative history of the lawmakers' intent in enacting it. From the intent expressed in the legislative history of RSA 21–I:30, however, the court...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Impact Food Sales, Inc. v. Evans
...hold otherwise adds words to the statute that the legislature did not see fit to include. See State Employees Assoc. of N.H. v. N.H. Div. of Personnel, 158 N.H. 338, 343, 965 A.2d 1116 (2009) (we will not add language that the legislature did not see fit to include).In the case before us, I......
-
State Employees' Ass'n of N.H. v. State
...program and statutory scheme. See RSA 21–I:30, I–II (Supp.2009) (amended 2010); see also State Employees Assoc. of N.H. v. N.H. Div. of Personnel, 158 N.H. 338, 340, 965 A.2d 1116 (2009). Eligible retirees include retired state law enforcement personnel (Group II), other retired state emplo......
-
In re Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC
...them, and in light of the policy sought to be advanced by the entire statutory scheme." State Employees Assoc. of N.H. v. N.H. Div. of Personnel, 158 N.H. 338, 343, 965 A.2d 1116 (2009) (quotation omitted).Read as a whole, the Restructuring Statute clearly evinces that, while the reduction ......
-
Rankin v. S. St. Downtown Holdings, Inc.
...enacts a provision, it has in mind previous statutes relating to the same subject matter." State Employees Assoc. of N.H. v. N.H. Div. of Personnel, 158 N.H. 338, 345, 965 A.2d 1116 (2009) (quotations and brackets omitted). Accordingly, we have recognized that "[o]rdinarily, any material ch......