| Date: | 09/18/2026 |
|---|---|
| Organization: | Division of Administrative Law Appeals |
| Docket Number: | CR-25-0467, CR-25-0488, CR-25-0536, CR-25-0544, CR-25-0545, CR-25-0546, CR-25-0547, CR-25-0605, CR-25-0646 |
The petitioners in these nine appeals are employees of the Boston school system. Under a collective bargaining agreement, their pay sometimes includes sums referred to as “caseload-overage pay” and “clerical-support pay” (together, extra pay). In formal decision letters, the Boston Retirement System (board) informed the petitioners that it would not treat their extra pay as regular compensation for retirement purposes. See G.L. c. 32, §§ 1, 5(2)(a). The petitioners promptly lodged these appeals, which were consolidated with each other and with two other appeals not at issue here.
On close examination, the petitioners were not “aggrieved” by the board’s letters in the sense that would make the letters appealable under G.L. c. 32, § 16(4). The word “aggrieved” in the context of such statutes denotes actual, practical injuries to a party’s rights. See Board of Health of Sturbridge v. Board of Health of Southbridge, 461 Mass. 548, 557 (2012). A decision of a retirement board in particular tends to be aggrieving if it decreases the amounts payable to a member or increases the amounts collectable from her; a predictive “opinion letter” does not qualify. See Gloucester Ret. Bd. v. Public Emp. Ret. Admin. Comm’n, No. CR-21-217, 2025 WL 2322619, at *1 (Contributory Ret. App. Bd. May 28, 2025) (citing cases).
These petitioners are not yet seeking to retire. As a result, the board’s position as stated in its letters may or may not impose adverse consequences on them. Each petitioner ultimately may withdraw his or her contributions instead of retiring, may retire for reasons other than superannuation, and may retire from a system other than Boston. Each petitioner may or may not receive extra pay during the three-year or five-year period that generally serves as the basis for the retirement calculations. When each petitioner retires, his or her final retirement system will need to conduct a new analysis of the petitioner’s regular compensation, correcting any earlier mistakes or misstatements. SeeClothier v. Teachers’ Ret. Bd., 78 Mass. App. Ct. 143, 146 (2010); Hunter v. Contributory Ret. Appeal Bd., 80 Mass. App. Ct. 257, 263 (2011).
In light of the foregoing considerations, a prior order invited the parties to be heard on whether these appeals should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or failure to state a claim. The parties have responded jointly that they “have no objection” to the appeals being dismissed. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
/s/ Yakov Malkiel
Yakov Malkiel
Administrative Magistrate
Division of Administrative Law Appeals