Barranco vs. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board, et al, (Docket No. 23-P-217) (Aug. 29, 2024) involves the issue of post-retirement earnings. Barranco retired as the executive director of the Merrimack Special Education Collaborative in 2005, collecting a pension from MTRS. After retirement, Barranco continued working as the executive director of the Merrimack Education Center, Inc. (MEC), a private nonprofit entity that supported the collaborative and other schools and towns. The MTRS found that Barranco’s continued role at MEC resulted in earnings that violated post-retirement limits set forth in G.L. c. 32, § 91, as MEC’s work was deemed to be indirectly serving the collaborative which was a public entity.
That decision was appealed to the Division of Administrative Law Appeals (DALA). After hearing, DALA concluded that a significant portion of Barranco’s post-retirement earnings were attributable to public service rendered to the collaborative, violating the statutory earnings cap. MTRS recouped excess earnings from his pension payments. Barranco appealed to CRAB, which affirmed DALA’s decision. Barranco then sought judicial review in Superior Court, which upheld CRAB’s decision. Barranco subsequently appealed the Superior Court's judgment to the Appeals Court.
The Appeals Court found that § 91 applies to Barranco because the collaborative, a public entity, was involved. Barranco’s work at MEC was effectively public service because MEC’s administrative functions were deeply intertwined with the collaborative’s operations. The court affirmed that earnings from such indirect public service were subject to the same limits as direct public employment. The court interpreted the term “any service” in § 91 broadly, meaning that any service benefiting a public entity, directly or indirectly, falls under the statute. The court dismissed Barranco's argument that his employment at a private entity (MEC) exempted him from these rules. The court upheld MTRS’s authority to recoup excess earnings from Barranco’s pension under § 91 and § 20 (5)(b) of G.L. c. 32. It found that Barranco had ample notice of the restrictions on post-retirement earnings and that the recoupment process did not violate due process rights.
The Appeals Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment that CRAB correctly upheld the decision to recoup excess earnings from Barranco's pension. The court found no merit in Barranco's arguments regarding the applicability of § 91 or the procedures followed by MTRS and CRAB.
Comments