Decision  Crupi v. State Bd. Ret., CR-25-0003

Date:	04/25/2025
Organization:	Division of Administrative Law Appeals
Docket Number:	CR-25-0003

• Petitioner: Anthony Crupi
• Respondent: State Board of Retirement
• Administrative Magistrate: Yakov Malkiel

Order of Dismissal

Petitioner Anthony Crupi appeals from a decision of the State Board of Retirement (board) declining to classify him in group 4 under G.L. c. 32, § 3(2)(g).  A prior order directed Mr. Crupi to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim.  Mr. Crupi has timely filed a responsive memorandum and four exhibits.

The overarching goal of the retirement law’s grouping system is to draw employees with “hazardous duties” into early retirement.  See Spencer v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 479 Mass. 210, 220 (2018); Public Emp. Ret. Admin. Comm’n v. Madden, 86 Mass. App. Ct. 1107 (2014) (unpublished memorandum opinion); Popp v. State Board of Retirement, No. CR-17-848, 2023 WL 11806173, at *4 n.32 (Contributory Ret. App. Bd. Nov. 16, 2023).  In furtherance of this goal, the Legislature could have required the retirement boards to evaluate the hazardousness of every employee’s day-to-day routine.  As Mr. Crupi observes, certain portions of the grouping statute do inquire into employees’ “regular and major duties.”  See Maddocks v. Contributory Ret. Appeal Bd., 369 Mass. 488, 493 (1976). But the provision that governs group 4 adopts a blunter, more easily administrable technique:  it identifies eligible employees by “naming their positions or titles rather than by describing the type of work they perform.”  Gaw v. Contributory Ret. Appeal Bd., 4 Mass. App. Ct. 250, 254 (1976).  See Retirement Bd. of Taunton v. Contributory Ret. Appeal Bd., 56 Mass. App. Ct. 914, 915 (2002); Fine v. Contributory Ret. Appeal Bd., 401 Mass. 639, 643 (1988).

Mr. Crupi’s job title is “Laboratory Supervisor III.”  He recognizes that his title and position are not enumerated in the group 4 statute. The board’s refusal to assign Mr. Crupi to group 4 was therefore correct as a matter of law.

Mr. Crupi offers evidence to the effect that his duties are physically demanding and have impacted his health.  He cites a report whose authors opine that “[t]he criteria for movement to Group 4 should be based on job responsibilities—not job title.”  Report of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Massachusetts Public Employees’ Pension Classification System, https://ma911.org/_wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Blue-Ribbon-Report-on-Retirement-Classification.pdf (last visited March 25, 2025).  But as Mr. Crupi appreciates elsewhere in his papers, the contours of group 4 are a matter for consideration “by the Legislature.”  This tribunal can neither amend the governing statute nor override it on the basis of policy considerations.  See Bristol County Ret. Bd. v. Contributory Ret. Appeal Bd., 65 Mass. App. Ct. 443, 451-52 (2006).  “[W]e must apply the law as written, even where the result may appear harsh.”  Roussin v. Boston Ret. Syst., No. CR-23-28, 2024 WL 2956657, at *2 (Contributory Ret. App. Bd. June 3, 2024).

In view of the foregoing, Mr. Crupi’s submissions do not state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 801 C.M.R. § 1.01(7)(g)(3).  It is therefore ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED.

Division of Administrative Law Appeals

/s/ Yakov Malkiel

Yakov Malkiel
Administrative Magistrate