Legal Opinion

O'Brien v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided February 18, 2010No. 09-P-533PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

At issue is whether certain contract-based remuneration received by O’Brien — holiday pay, a fitness bonus, a uniform allowance, longevity pay, and an educational differential — qualified as “regular compensation,” as that term is used in G. L. c. 32, § 1, as amended by St. 1979, c. 681, for the purpose of calculating his retirement allowance. Section 1 provides in pertinent part:

“ ‘Regular compensation’ . . . shall mean the salary, wages or other compensation in whatever form, lawfully determined for the individual service of the employee by the employing authority, not including bonus,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Robinson v. Contributory Retirement Appeal BoardMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1985
  2. Bulger v. Contributory Retirement Appeal BoardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2006
  3. Pelonzi v. Retirement BoardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2008
  4. Kozloski v. Contributory Retirement Appeal BoardMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2004

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Parente v. State Board of RetirementMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2011
  2. Kearns v. State Board of RetirementMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2012

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API