Gault v. Public School Employes' Retirement Board

720 A.2d 1090, 1998 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 881
CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedNovember 25, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 720 A.2d 1090 (Gault v. Public School Employes' Retirement Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gault v. Public School Employes' Retirement Board, 720 A.2d 1090, 1998 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 881 (Pa. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

SMITH, Judge.

Ruth McDonald Gault petitions for review of an order of the Public School Employes’ Retirement Board (Board) that sustained exceptions to a proposed report filed by a hearing examiner and denied her request to purchase retirement credit for a maternity leave of absence. Gault questions whether the Board erred in interpreting Section 8304(b)(7) of the Public School Employees’ Retirement Code (Retirement Code), 24 Pa.C.S. § 8304(b)(7), which authorizes women to purchase retirement service credit for time spent on forced maternity leave, as imposing a one-year deadline for making application. In the alternative, if the statute does create a one-year period for purchase of credit for maternity leave, Gault questions whether this constitutes sex discrimination and violation of the principle of equal protection of the laws, contrary to the guarantee in Article I, Section 28 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania.

I

Gault, a public school teacher with the Cornwall-Lebanon School District (School *1091 District), became pregnant during the 1972-1973 school year. At the time the School District’s policy required pregnant teachers to take a maternity leave of absence. Gault took such leave for the second semester. The Retirement Code was amended by the Act of August 5, 1991, P.L. 182, No.1991-28 (Act 23), to include new forms of nonschool service for which members of Public School Employes’ Retirement System of Pennsylvania (PSERS) might purchase credit for retirement purposes. Among those was service for time spent on a maternity leave of absence required by the employer before May 17,1975, 24 Pa.C.S. § 8304(b)(7). 1

The relevant provisions of Section 8304, as amended, relating to creditable nonschool service, are as follows:

(a) Eligibility. — An active member ... shall be eligible to receive Class T-C service credit for creditable nonschool service as set forth in subsection (b) ... provided that such service is certified by the previous employer and the manner of payment of the amount due is agreed upon by the member, the employer, and the board.
(b) Limitations on nonschool service. — Creditable nonschool service credit shall be limited to:
(7) Service for the period of time spent on maternity leave of absence required by the employer, which creditable service shall not exceed two years per leave and shall be applicable only to a maternity leave which was mandatory prior to May 17, 1975. The purchase of this service shall begin within one year of the employee’s eligibility to purchase this creditable service.

PSERS, in an internal policy statement developed to provide guidance to its employees, interpreted Act 23 as requiring any teacher who was an active member at the time of the effective date of the provisions, November 2, 1991, to apply to make such a purchase within one year of that date, i.e., by November 3, 1992. Gault was an active member in that period, but she did not apply then. 2 Later, after learning that coworkers had purchased retirement credit for maternity leave, Gault applied to purchase credit on March 20, 1996. PSERS denied her request, and Gault appealed. Following a healing the hearing examiner concluded that PSERS had misinterpreted the provisions of Section 8304 as creating a deadline of November 3, 1992 for purchase of forced maternity leave credit, and she issued a recommendation that the Board grant Gault’s application. 3 The Board rejected the hearing examiner’s analysis of Section 8304 and denied Gault’s request. This Court’s review of a decision of the Board is limited to determining whether the necessary findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record and whether there was an error of law or a constitutional violation. Hopkins v. Public School Employes’ Retirement Board, 674 A.2d 1197 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996).

II

A

Gault begins by asserting that the background for this case is found in a series of *1092 decisions addressing forced maternity leave and resignation for teachers, beginning with Cerra v. East Stroudsburg Area School Dist., 450 Pa. 207, 299 A.2d 277 (1973). Without deciding constitutional issues raised, the Supreme Court concluded in Cerra that a school board’s regulation requiring any pregnant employee to resign not later than the end of the fifth month of pregnancy constituted “sex discrimination pure and simple” in violation of Section 955(a) of -the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, Act of October 27, 1955, P.L. 744, as amended, 43 P.S. § 955(a). Cerra, 450 Pa. at 213, 299 A.2d at 280. Gault maintains that the clear intention of the legislature in enacting Act 23 was to permit women who had been discriminated against in past decades to recoup a portion of their loss by allowing them to purchase, at their own expense, retirement service credit for years when they would have been working but for the discriminatory practice of forced leave for the periods before and after the births of their children.

Gault acknowledges that the Board is the agency charged with the execution and application of the Retirement Code and that its interpretation should not be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous. Laurito v. Public School Employes’ Retirement Board, 146 Pa.Cmwlth. 514, 606 A.2d 609 (Pa.Cmwlth.1992). 4 She notes also, however, that this Court has stated that as a general rule, pension statutes are to be liberally construed in favor of the pensioner but that the Court may consider the consequences of a particular construction when the statute is susceptible to more than one interpretation. Panko v. Public School Employees’ Retirement System, 89 Pa.Cmwlth. 419, 492 A.2d 805 (1985).

Gault stresses that the November 3, 1992 deadline is not expressly stated in Act 23 but results from the Board’s interpretation of the requirement of Section 8304(b)(7) that the “purchase shall begin within one year of the employee’s eligibility to purchase” in conjunction with the effective date of the provision, November 2,1991. She argues that the Board erred in concluding that all active employees meeting the other requirements became “eligible” to purchase on the effective date. Rather, Gault contends that the meaning of eligibility must be determined with reference to Section 8304(a), which relates to eligibility.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Sinkman v. State Employees' Retirement Board
958 A.2d 613 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2008)
Hawes v. Public School Employes' Retirement Board
778 A.2d 1277 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
720 A.2d 1090, 1998 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gault-v-public-school-employes-retirement-board-pacommwct-1998.