JASON FAIRCHILD VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES WILLIAM MCELREA VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES (POLICE AND FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM) (CONSOLIDATED) ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NOS. A-1361-17T1
A-4119-17T1
JASON FAIRCHILD,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES,
POLICE AND FIREMEN'S
RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Respondent-Respondent.
__________________________
WILLIAM MCELREA,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES,
POLICE AND FIREMEN'S
RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Respondent-Respondent.
__________________________
Argued September 16, 2019 – Decided November 25, 2019
Before Judges Sabatino, Sumners and Geiger.
On appeal from the Board of Trustees of the Police and
Firemen's Retirement System, Department of the
Treasury, Docket Nos. 3-100279 and 3-93959.
Timothy J. Prol argued the cause for appellants
(Alterman & Associates, LLC, attorneys; Stuart J.
Alterman, of counsel; Arthur J. Murray and Timothy J.
Prol, on the briefs).
Amy Chung, Deputy Attorney General, argued the
cause for respondent (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney
General, attorney; Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant
Attorney General, of counsel; Amy Chung, on the
briefs).
PER CURIAM
In these two appeals that have been consolidated due to their common
issues, petitioners Jason Fairchild and William McElrea contend the Board of
Trustees (Board), Police and Firemen's Retirement System (PFRS),
misinterpreted N.J.S.A. 43:16A-5(3) in its final agency decision, denying their
applications for twenty-year service retirement pension benefits (early service
retirement pension). The Board determined that since petitioners were not PFRS
members at the time of the statute's January 18, 2000 effective date, they were
not eligible for the benefits. Because the Board's decision is consistent with our
recent opinion in Tasca v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 458 N.J.
A-1361-17T1
2
Super. 47 (App. Div. 2019), which was issued after the agency's determination,
we conclude there is no merit to petitioners' arguments and therefore affirm.
I
For purposes of our opinion, we need not detail the entire procedural
backdrop of petitioners' applications for early service retirement benefit s. We
do, however, briefly discuss their PFRS membership, their service credits, and
the pertinent administrative actions that are crucial to our decision.
Fairchild
Fairchild enrolled as a member of PFRS on May 1, 2005, upon his
employment with the County of Morris as a corrections officer. His membership
in PFRS continued following his appointment that year as a police officer with
the Milburn Township Police Department, effective August 1. The next year,
he purchased eight years and four months of military and federal service credit
towards his PFRS account.
On January 26, 2017, Fairchild applied for early service retirement
benefits to be effective July 1, when he would have twenty years and six months
of service credit in his PFRS account. After the Department of the Treasury,
Division of Pensions and Benefits (the Division), denied his application, he
appealed to the Board. On October 17, the Board issued its final agency decision
A-1361-17T1
3
denying his application because he was not a member of PFRS on January 18,
2000, when N.J.S.A. 43:16A-5(3), authorizing early retirement pension benefits,
took effect.
McElrea
McElrea enrolled as a member of PFRS on February 2, 2002, upon his
employment with the Township of Hamilton as a police officer. At the end of
that same year, he purchased four years and ten months of military service credit
towards his PFRS account. In March 2006, he was authorized to purchase seven
months of uncredited service towards his PFRS account.
On May 19, 2016, McElrea applied for early retirement pension benefits
to be effective January 1, 2017, when he would have twenty-one years and four
months of service credit in his PFRS account. The Division notified him he was
ineligible for regular or early retirement pension benefits as of January 1, 2017,
his sought-after retirement date.
On April 19, 2017, McElrea refiled for early retirement pension benefits
effective April 1, 2018. The Division advised him he was ineligible to retire
with pension benefits as of that date. Administrative appeals thereafter resulted
in the Board's final agency decision on April 10, 2018, denying his application
A-1361-17T1
4
because he was not a member of PFRS on January 18, 2000, when N.J.S.A.
43:16A-5(3) authorizing early retirement pension benefits took effect.
II
Petitioners acknowledge their appeals mirror the arguments that this court
addressed less than a year ago in Tasca, with the exception of the argument 1 that
"N.J.S.A. 43:16A-5(2)(b) grants a 20-year retirement for service regardless of
PFRS enrollment date, age, or transfer."
In Tasca, we concluded that because the petitioner was not a PFRS
member as of the January 18, 2000 effective date of N.J.S.A. 43:16A-5(3), she
was not eligible for the early retirement pension benefits. 458 N.J. Super. at 56-
58.2 Nevertheless, petitioners assert this panel should disagree with the panel
that decided Tasca, so the issue can be heard and resolved by our Supreme
Court.3
1
On October 3, 2019, following oral argument, we granted petitioners' motion
to file a supplemental brief to allow them to present an argument that was not
raised before the Board.
2
Although Tasca was decided after the Board rendered its final agency
decisions that are in question here, we see no value in remanding these matters
for the Board to reconsider their decisions, as they are consistent with Tasca.
3
The petitioner in Tasca did not file a petition of certification seeking relief
with our Supreme Court.
A-1361-17T1
5
In particular, petitioners urge that our interpretation of N.J.S.A. 43:16A-
5(3) is incorrect and inconsistent with the legislative and executive intent of the
statute. They claim the statute was designed to make the retirement and
survivors benefits of PFRS comparable, to the extent possible, to the benefits
under the State Police Retirement System (SPRS), which includes a twenty-year
service retirement option. N.J.S.A. 53:5A-8(b), which governs the SPRS,
provides:
b. Any member of the retirement system may retire on
a service retirement allowance upon the completion of
at least 20 years of creditable service [in the retirement
system].
Petitioners also cite the sponsor's statement accompanying the bill, which
became N.J.S.A. 43:16A-5(3), to support their reading of the statute. The
statement provides:
This bill would allow a member retiring after 20 years
of creditable service to receive a total retirement
allowance of 50% of final compensation. In addition,
a member of the system as of the effective date of this
bill would be entitled to a retirement allowance of 50%
of final compensation plus an additional 3% of final
compensation for every additional year of creditable
service up to 25 years.
Statement to A2328/S 1742, 208th Legislature Regular
Session, 1998.
A-1361-17T1
6
Petitioners further point to an August 4, 2014 letter to the Director of
Division of Pensions by State Senator Diane Allen, a bill sponsor, that
purportedly clarifies the bill's language. She wrote: "The decision of the
Division to interpret the law so that it applies only to PFRS members who were
in the system on January 18, 2000 and not to any person who enrolled thereafter
is incorrect." They also rely on a newspaper article, which was written
contemporaneously with the passage of the legislation that became N.J.S.A.
43:16A-5(3), titled "Early retirement OK'd for cops, firefighters."
Petitioners maintain that if the statute is interpreted to prohibit early
retirement pension benefits for all but those who were PFRS members prior to
the statute's effective date, there would be no point of an interfund service credit
transfer if a member does not get credit in the new retirement system for the
time they transfer.
Lastly, petitioners contend that barring any PFRS member who became
enrolled after January 18, 2000 from early retirement pension benefits yields an
absurd result of making the application of N.J.S.A. 43:16A-5(3) obsolete
because with all the pre-January 18, 2000 PFRS members already retired, every
new member after that date would not be able to retire after twenty years of
A-1361-17T1
7
service. If it was intended to exclude every enrollee after January 18, 2000 the
statute would have stated so.
For the same reasons that we expressed in Tasca, we discern no merit to
petitioners' contention that N.J.S.A. 43:16A-5(3) is ambiguous in stating who is
entitled to early service retirement benefits and therefore we need to look to the
statute's legislative history to determine eligibility for the benefits. In pertinent
part, N.J.S.A. 43:16A-5(3), provides:
Any member of the retirement system as of the effective
date of P.L. 1999, c. 428 who has 20 or more years of
creditable service at the time of retirement shall be
entitled to receive a retirement allowance equal to 50%
of the member's final compensation . . . .
[(Emphasis added).]
The statute's effective date is January 18, 2000. L. 1999, c. 428, § 2.
In applying our well-settled statutory rules of construction, we succinctly
held in Tasca:
[I]t is obvious that the Legislature chose not to use the
term "enrollment date" as the trigger for determining
eligibility for early retirement pension benefits.
N.J.S.A. 43:16A-5(3) states that an individual must be
a member of PFRS on January 18, 2000, to qualify for
early retirement pension benefits. We have no doubt
that the Legislature was familiar with the ability of a
person to purchase and transfer time from another
pension system to his or her PFRS membership, as
noted above. The Legislature unambiguously limited
A-1361-17T1
8
the class of PFRS members who are eligible to take
advantage of early retirement pension benefits, perhaps
for fiscal or budgetary reasons. Thus, we discern no
reason to read the statute contrary to its plain and clear
meaning that a person had to be a PFRS member on
January 18, 2000, to be eligible for early retirement
service pension benefits.
[Tasca, 458 N.J. Super. at 58.]
We emphasized in Tasca that we should give deference to the Board's
ruling that the petitioner was ineligible for early service retirement benefits
because under its interpretation of N.J.S.A. 43:16A-5(3), despite having
transferred her the requisite service credit from the Public Employees
Retirement system to PFRS, she was not a PFRS member on January 18, 2000.
Considering our assessment that the plain language of N.J.S.A. 43:16A-
5(3) requires the denial of early service retirement benefits, we need not address
petitioners' argument that the statute's legislative history and a sponsor's letter
demonstrate that they are entitled to the benefits because as long as they possess
the required service credits they need not be a PFRS member on January 18,
2000. We only look outside the plain language of a statute if "it [is] ambiguous
. . . or leads to an absurd result." Tasca, 458 N.J. at 56 (quoting Tumpson v.
Farina, 218 N.J. 450, 467-68 (2014)). We did not conclude the statute's language
is ambiguous in providing that a person must be a PFRS member by a certain
A-1361-17T1
9
date to be eligible for early service retirement benefits, nor did we conclude the
Board's reasoning created an absurd result because perhaps there were budgetary
reasons at the time the statute was enacted to limit those eligible to retire. Id. at
58.
That said, we find nothing in the legislative history cited by petitioners,
which supports their interpretation of the N.J.S.A. 43:16A-5(3) and eligibility
for early service retirement benefits. And as for the letter by Senator Allen, we
agree with the Division that it serves no purpose in interpreting a statute.
Johnson v. Roselle EZ Quick LLC, 226 N.J. 370, 390 (2016) (finding that
sponsor statements not affixed to a bill are "unofficial statements of individual
legislators, which 'are not generally considered to be a reliable guide to
legislative intent,' because they 'tell us only what the speaker . . . believed' and
'nothing about what the Legislature meant by the words it chose to include in
the amendment.'") (citations omitted); Quality Health Care v. N.J. Dep't of
Banking & Ins., 358 N.J. Super. 123, 129 (App. Div. 2003) (holding "post-
enactment statements of legislators as extrinsic evidence of legislative intent are
disapproved, in contrast to contemporaneous sponsor statements, because they
are of limited legal relevance or value.") (citation omitted).
A-1361-17T1
10
Had the Legislature disagreed with the Board's long-standing
interpretation of N.J.S.A. 43:16A-5(3), which we approved in Tasca, it has yet
to revise the statute to conform to petitioners' sought-after interpretation. See
Haines v. Taft, 237 N.J. 271, 294-95 (2019) (Albin, J., dissenting).
As for petitioners' supplemental argument, we find it lacking in sufficient
merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11–3(e)(1)(E).
In short, we stand by our decision in Tasca, which applies here, and have
no issue with the Board's denial of early service retirement benefits to
petitioners.
Affirm.
A-1361-17T1
11