State v. Yashar

CourtSuperior Court of Rhode Island
Decision Date20 March 2007
Docket Number: PC 06-1866
PartiesTHE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, By and Through Its Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch; and The Employees’ Retirement System of Rhode Island, By and Through Its Chairman, Paul J. Tavares v. MARJORIE R. YASHAR

THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, By and Through Its Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch; and The Employees’ Retirement System of Rhode Island, By and Through Its Chairman, Paul J. Tavares
v.
MARJORIE R. YASHAR

No.: PC 06-1866

Superior Court of Rhode Island

March 20, 2007


DECISION

SAVAGE, J.

In this action, the State of Rhode Island[1] and Marjorie R. Yashar, a retired judge of the Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal, dispute the amount of retirement pension to which she is entitled. The State has filed a motion for partial summary judgment, seeking a declaration from this Court that Judge Yashar is entitled, as a matter of law, to a pension equal to only 75% of the salary that she was receiving at the time of her retirement, as opposed to the pension of 100% of her pre-retirement salary that she is currently receiving. The State claims that, under the judicial pension statute at issue, R.I. Gen. Laws § 8-8.2-6(a), her current pension wrongfully reflects credit for time she spent on an unpaid leave of absence which, if properly deducted, leaves her short of the 20 years of judicial service required to secure a full pension under the statute.

Judge Yashar has filed a cross-motion for summary judgment in which she first seeks dismissal of this action on the grounds that the State lacks standing to bring it or, alternatively, that this Court lacks jurisdiction to review a pension decision of the State Court Administrator. As to standing, she argues that neither the Attorney General nor the General Treasurer has suffered any injury-in-fact. As to jurisdiction, she contends that a decision of the State Court Administrator is subject to review only by way of a common law writ of certiorari to the Rhode Island Supreme Court.

Assuming, arguendo, that this Court determines that the State has standing to bring this action and that it has jurisdiction over the State’s action for declaratory and equitable relief, Judge Yashar seeks a declaration by this Court that she is entitled, as a matter of law, to the retirement pension that she is currently receiving of 100% of her pre-retirement salary. She claims that under the judicial pension statute in dispute, R.I. Gen. Laws § 8-8.2-6(a), she is entitled to credit for her time in state service, which spans over 20 years, without regard to whether she spent a portion of that time on an unpaid leave of absence. She argues further that the State is barred from seeking to reduce her pension based on principles of contract law and equitable estoppel. She claims that she entered into a settlement agreement with the Commission on Judicial Tenure and Discipline and Chief Judge DeRobbio, by which she agreed to accept a public censure with respect to her pending disciplinary charges, dismiss her appeal of a decision in her mandamus action that denied her request to be returned to paid employment, and retire, in exchange for an alleged promise of the State Court Administrator that she would be entitled to a pension, upon retirement, equal to 100% of her pre-retirement salary.

For the reasons set forth in this Decision, this Court grants the State’s motion for partial summary judgment and denies Judge Yashar’s cross-motion for summary judgment. This Court finds that the Attorney General has standing to bring this action for declaratory relief on behalf of the public to ensure that public officials receive retirement pensions that are not in excess of those granted by state law. Similarly, the General Treasurer, in his capacity as Chairman of the ERSRI, has standing to bring this action to ensure the legal disbursement of public funds. This Court finds further that there is no jurisdictional hurdle to it entertaining such an action for declaratory and injunctive relief.

This Court declares that, under Rhode Island law, Judge Yashar is entitled not to the 100% pension that she is currently receiving, but to a pension equal to 75% of her pre-retirement salary.[2] While the judicial pension statute, R.I. Gen. Laws 8-8.2-6(a), allowed her to retire at age 65 with a full pension as long as she “served” for 20 years as a judge, this Court finds that the extended unpaid leave of absence that she took prior to retiring at age 65 - being time during which she neither worked as a judge nor received pay - cannot be credited toward her pension as time served under the statute. The State is neither equitably estopped nor barred by precepts of contract law from securing such declaratory relief. Even assuming, without deciding, that state actors promised Judge Yashar a full pension as part of an alleged settlement agreement with her, any such promise is unenforceable, as it contravenes state law.

I

Factual Background[3]

On July 10, 1985, Marjorie R. Yashar was sworn in as an administrative judge of the Administrative Adjudication Division of the Department of Transportation (“AAD”).[4]Def.’s Aff. at ¶ 2. On September 1, 1992, the AAD became the Administrative Adjudication Court (“AAC”)[5], and Judge Yashar remained a judge of the AAC until it became the Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal (“RITT”), effective July 1, 1999, at which time she became a judge of the RITT.[6] Id.

In August of 2004, Albert E. DeRobbio, Chief Judge of the Rhode Island District Court and the RITT (“Chief Judge DeRobbio”), filed a multiple charge complaint against Judge Yashar with the Commission on Judicial Tenure and Discipline (“the Commission”). This complaint apparently alleged that, on various dates in 2004, she either failed to appear to perform her duties as Magistrate Judge of the RITT or that she arrived late for or left early from such duties. See In re Marjorie R. Yashar, Magistrate Judge for the Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal, C.A. No. 05-271-M.P. (R.I. 2005) (Order) (filed Oct. 5, 2005); App. to Def.’s Aff. at 25-26. On February 7, 2005, during the pendency of that complaint, Judge Yashar requested, by letter through her legal counsel, that Chief Judge DeRobbio place her on temporary medical leave, of undefined duration, during which time she expected that she would not be paid. App. to Def.’s Aff. at 1 (Letter from John D. Lynch, Esq. to Chief Judge DeRobbio dated Feb. 7, 2005). [7] The letter stated that a report from her physician, Frank W. Sullivan, M.D., was enclosed and that it was his recommendation that “she take a medical leave of absence from work for the next several weeks.” Id. [8] The letter further referenced her counsel’s “understanding” that an unpaid leave of absence would not adversely affect the medical or retirement benefits to which she otherwise would be entitled. Id. [9] There is no evidence in the record to suggest that this understanding was the product of any express communication between (1) Judge Yashar or her counsel and (2) Chief Judge DeRobbio or any other state official.

Chief Judge DeRobbio responded, by letter dated February 10, 2005, in one substantive line as follows: “Pursuant to the request contained in your letter of February 7, 2005, and the accompanying report from Frank W. Sullivan, M.D., dated February 8, 2005, Judge Marjorie R. Yashar shall be placed on leave without pay status retroactive to Tuesday, February 1, 2005.” App. to Def.’s Aff. at 2 (Letter from Chief Judge DeRobbio to John D. Lynch, Esq. dated Feb. 10, 2005) (emphasis added). In his letter, Chief Judge DeRobbio did not characterize Judge Yashar’s requested leave as medical in nature and made no representations regarding her entitlement to continued medical or pension benefits during her unpaid leave of absence. According to her affidavit, Judge Yashar understood that she was placed on “medical leave” and suggests that the absence of pay during that leave was voluntary on her part. Def.’s Aff. at ¶¶ 7, 10. Judge Yashar received medical insurance benefits during the time that she was on her unpaid leave of absence and thereafter, from February 1, 2005 through September 27, 2005. Def.’s Aff. at ¶ 11.

Also, on February 10, 2005, Joseph P. Ippolito, District Court Administrator and Magistrate, sent a letter to J. Joseph Baxter, Jr., State Court Administrator, with a copy to Chief Justice Frank J. Williams, enclosing a copy of Chief Judge DeRobbio’s letter to Judge Yashar’s attorney dated February 10, 2005. App. to Def.’s Aff. at 3 (Letter from District Court Administrator Joseph P. Ippolito to State Court Administrator J. Joseph Baxter, Jr. dated Feb. 10, 2005). In his letter, District Court Administrator Ippolito characterized Chief Judge DeRobbio’s letter as “directing that Judge Marjorie Yashar of the RITT be placed on leave without pay status.” Id. District Court Administrator Ippolito further stated that he was transmitting Chief Judge DeRobbio’s letter to the State Court Administrative Office for processing by the Human Resources Division. Id. There is no evidence in the record as to the administrative processing of Judge Yashar’s leave without pay request that ensued thereafter.

On or about February 23, 2005, according to her affidavit, Judge Yashar received a formal notice from the Commission regarding the complaint that had been filed with it against her. Def.’s Aff. at ¶ 12. It advised her that the charges against her would be pursued and that a public hearing would be scheduled. Id.[10] According to other records in this case, the Commission served notice upon her on April 1, 2005, following a preliminary investigation into the charges, captioned “Notice of Investigation, Nature of Charges and Public Hearing” charging that on various dates in 2004, she either failed to appear to perform her duties as Magistrate Judge or she arrived late for, or departed early from, such duties. See In re Marjorie R. Yashar, C.A. No. 05-271-M.P.; App. to Def.’s Aff. at 25-26. It is not clear whether this is the notice to which she referred in her affidavit.

By letter to Chief Judge DeRobbio dated May 11, 2005, Judge Yashar requested, through counsel, that she be allowed to return to work at some...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT