| Date: | 03/06/2026 |
|---|---|
| Organization: | Division of Administrative Law Appeals |
| Docket Number: | CR-25-0304 |
The Petitioner was a Criminal Identification Officer for the Plymouth County Sheriff’s Department. The Petitioner’s position was originally classified as group 4 by the Plymouth Retirement Board. However, in 2010 some employees of the Sheriff’s department became members of the State Retirement system. In 2025, the Petitioner applied for group 4 status with the State Board of Retirement. The State Board denied his request. The State Board was authorized to conduct an independent assessment of the Petitioner’s group status. Because the Petitioner’s position was not enumerated in G.L. c. 32, § 3(2)(g), the State Board’s classification is affirmed.
Pursuant to G.L. c. 32, § 16(4), the Petitioner timely appeals a decision by the State Board of Retirement (SBR or Board) denying his request for Group 4 status. The Division of Administrative Law Appeals (DALA) issued a scheduling order advising the parties that the matter would be decided without a hearing. See 801 Code of Mass. Reg. § 1.01(10)(b). On June 26, 2025, the Petitioner submitted a memorandum with thirteen exhibits; the SBR submitted a response on January 30, 2026, with two additional exhibits. I now admit Exhibits 1-15 into evidence.
FINDINGS OF FACT
DISCUSSION
“[M]embers of Massachusetts contributory retirement systems are classified into four groups for retirement purposes.” McLaughlin v. State Bd. of Ret., CR-19-0515, *7, 2022 WL 16921450 (Div. Admin. Law Apps. Oct. 14, 2022). Group 4 consists of public safety officers, officials, and employees, such as police officers, firefighters, and certain correction officers, Geller v. MTRS, CR-05-1273, *17, n.5, 2009 WL 5966846 (Div. Admin. Law Apps. Oct. 16, 2009), including “employees of the department of correction who are employed at any correctional institution or prison camp under the control of said department and who hold the position of correction officer . . . .” G.L. c. 32, § 3(2)(g).
Group classification is “properly based on the sole consideration of [a member’s] duties” and a members’ duties, in turn, are determined largely by consulting a member’s title or job description. See Maddocks v. Contributory Ret. App. Bd., 20 Mass. App. Ct. 479, 483 (1985). “[T]he Legislature has consistently described employees falling within Group 4 by naming their positions or titles rather than by describing the type of work they perform.” Gaw v. Contributory Ret. App. Bd., 4. Mass. App. Ct. 250, 254 (1976). Thus, to prevail, the Petitioner must show that his job title is among those listed in G.L. c. 32, § 3(2)(g). Unfortunately for the Petitioner, it is not.
The Petitioner contends that his job title is listed in the 1987 legislation that placed Barnstable CIOs in Group 4. However, the Petitioner’s reading of the 1987 legislation overlooks a critical qualifier: the statute confers Group 4 status only on CIOs “employed by the county of Barnstable bureau of investigation.” Mass. Stat. 1987, c. 260. It does not apply to employees of the Plymouth Sheriff’s Department. I previously rejected this same argument and see no reason to deviate from it now. Fowler v. State Bd. of Ret., CR-21-0327, *2-3, 2023 WL 6037358 (Div. Admin. Law Apps. Sep. 8, 2023).[1]
Alternatively, the Petitioner relies on Small v. State Board of Retirement, CR-22-0113, 2024 WL 4582635 (Div. Admin. Law Apps. Aug. 9, 2024), to argue that because Plymouth CIOs and Barnstable CIOs share the same responsibilities he is entitled to Group 4 status, even if his title is not specifically listed in G.L. c. 32, § 3(2)(g). However, the Petitioner’s reliance on Small is misplaced. Small involved an appeal for reclassification from Group 1 to Group 2. Group 2 classification “clearly contemplates a consideration of an employee’s ‘regular and major’ duties in addition to his or her job title.” Hunter v. Contributory Ret. App. Bd., 50 Mass. App. Ct. 257, 262 (2011). Conversely, Group 4 status does not depend on “the character of the member’s work.” Lenon v. State Bd. of Ret., CR-23-121, *2 (Div. Admin. Law Apps. Aug. 16, 2024). Rather, Group 4 focuses on formal “positions and titles.” Gaw, 4 Mass. App. Ct. at 254; See alsoHunter, supra,at 262-63 (ignoring job title and looking at job function is inconsistent with the statute).
The Petitioner’s job is not among the job titles listed in G.L. c. 32, § 3(2)(g) under Group 4, and thus he is not entitled to Group 4 classification. While this result may seem unfair to the Petitioner, DALA does not have the authority to afford the Petitioner a benefit to which he is not statutorily entitled. See, e.g., Comeau v. State Bd. of Ret., CR-12-373 (Div. Admin. Law Apps. Dec. 15, 2017) (“Comeau’s position was not included in Group 4 by the Legislature and I may not expand the list of job titles.”).
Finally, the Petitioner argues that because the Plymouth County Retirement Association had classified CIOs in Group 4, the SBR cannot now change that classification. He points to the transfer legislation that he insists was intended to maintain group classification. However, his argument is precluded by Hunter. Pursuant to G.L. c. 32, § 20(5)(c)(2), the Board is mandated to correct errors existing “in the records maintained by the system or . . . made in computing a benefit.” As the Petitioner’s job title is not enumerated in G.L. c. 32, § 3(2)(g), the Board was authorized to correct the erroneous classification. See Hunter, supra,at 263; Fowler v. State Bd. of Ret., CR-21-0327, *2-3, 2023 WL 6037358 (Div. Admin. Law Apps. Sep. 8, 2023).[2]
SBR’s decision denying the Petitioner’s request for Group 4 classification is affirmed.
SO, ORDERED.
Division of Administrative Law Appeals
Date: March 6, 2026
Eric Tennen
Administrative Magistrate
Division of Administrative Law Appeals
14 Summer Street, 4th floor
Malden, MA 02148
Tel: (781) 397-4700
www.mass.gov/dala
