SJC Agrees With MASSCOP and Pyle Rome That Public Employees Have Protected Property Interest In Pensions, And Revocation May Be Unconsitutitonal
The Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that, in certain circumstances, it is unconstitutional to scrap the pension of a public employee convicted of a crime. Attorneys Ian Russell and Patrick Bryant filed briefs on behalf of Massachusetts Coalition of Police, IUPA, AFL-CIO to support the right of police officers and public employees to retain earned pension benefits.
In Massachusetts, public employees contribute during their career to a retirement system. After a time, these employees are entitled to a pension when they leave public employment - whether they depart voluntarily or involuntarily. There are some exceptions to this general rule. The case of PERAC v. Bettencourt, SJC-11906 (April 6, 2016) involved the exception under Chapter 31, Section 15(4), when a public employee is convicted of a crime applicable to his or her job.
Bettencourt was a Peabody police officer for more than a quarter-century and worked in a bargaining unit represented by the Massachusetts Coalition of Police. In 2008, he was convicted of 21 separate misdemeanor counts of unauthorized computer access (in essence, he was found to have viewed the civil service scores and information of 21 fellow police officers). The judge, following a conviction, imposed a fine of $10,500, but no imprisonment or probation. The retirement board concluded that Bettencourt remained entitled to his pension, but the state oversight agency, Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission ("PERAC") disagreed. PERAC ruled that Bettencourt must forfeit his right to a pension and health insurance benefits, a loss he estimated to be nearly $2 million.
Bettencourt appealed, claiming that the loss of his pension was an excessive fine prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Judicial Court, the state's highest court, agreed.
The Eighth Amendment in the Bill of Rights and U.S. Constitution states: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." This case concerns the "excessive fines" clause.
First, the SJC agreed that public employees have a property interest in a retirement. Second, the SJC agreed that PERAC's imposition of pension forfeiture as a result of criminal conviction was a punishment or "fine" for purposes of the Eighth Amendment. Third, the SJC agreed that the forfeiture as applied to Bettencourt was excessive.
The SJC said that in determining whether a pension forfeiture is unconstitutionally excessive, it considers: “the degree of culpability and, in that regard, to consider the nature and circumstances of his offenses, whether they were related to any other illegal activities, the aggregate maximum sentence that could have been imposed, and the harm resulting from them.”
Applying those factors to Bettencourt, the Court concluded forfeiture of pension was excessive because the record established only “commission of a misdemeanor with a relatively light maximum sentence, no attempt by Bettencourt to divert or misuse public funds, no evidence that the private information he improperly gained was misused (or used at all), and no injury beyond the invasion of the other officers' privacy interest in their respective test scores.”
The SJC declined to rule that forfeiture of pensions is excessive in all circumstances or that a lesser form of punishment or forfeiture could not be imposed. Still, the Court decided that the decision about the method and amount of forfeiture for the pension of a convict must be decided by the legislature. Because no system exists in place now, the Court ruled that Bettencourt was entitled to keep the pension and health insurance benefits he earned during 25 years as a Peabody police officer.
This case is an important reminder that the U.S. Constitution applies to all of us, including public employees and police officers.
