Opinion ID: 2394524
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Petitioners Seek Increases in Pension Benefits From The City

Text: On October 1, 2002, Petitioners filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Retroactive and Prospective Increases in Annuity Payments in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. In the complaint, Petitioners requested that the Circuit Court force the City to give Petitioners retroactive and prospective increases in their pension benefits in tandem with those salary increases given to their active duty counterparts. Upon a motion to dismiss filed by the City, the Circuit Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, finding that Petitioners had not exhausted their administrative remedies under the City Code. The Circuit Court found that the overall statutory scheme of the City Code and Charter, as well as the language of Section 3.36.170A, required that Petitioners first seek resolution of their pension disputes with the City's Director of Human Resources and then, if necessary, the City's Civil Service Board. Intending to follow the administrative procedures set forth in the City Code, on or about March 6, 2003, Bowen submitted a memorandum to the City's Director of Human Resources requesting that his retirement pension benefits be increased. According to Bowen, he was entitled to an increase in pension benefits equal to the same increase in percentage given in 2001 to an active employee of the same rank and years of service as he was at his retirement. Sixty-one other retired employees, also believing that they were entitled to increases in pension benefits, filed individual claims with the Director of Human Resources requesting that their individual pension benefits be increased in tandem with the salary increases received by active duty police officers and firefighters. Some requested retroactive increases from the 1995 and 2001 changes in the pay scale structure; others requested only an increase from the 2001 change in the pay scale. By individual letters dated July 29, 2003, the Director of Human Resources denied each Petitioner's claim. By one letter dated August 27, 2003, Bowen and the other sixty-one retired employees appealed the decision of the Director of Human Resources to the City's Civil Service Board. On October 8, 2003, the Civil Service Board held a hearing. At the beginning of the hearing, the City requested that the Civil Service Board try each one of these individuals, these plaintiffs, separately. The City contended that the August 27, 2003, collective appeal was an improper joinder pursuant to the Federal Rules for two reasons: one, each member's name and address is known to the plaintiff in this action, therefore the class is not too large which [sic] cannot be represented; and, two, there are specific fact-related claims that are involved, including the differing years in service and rank of each retired employee. The Board agreed with the City and determined that it would, at that time, decide [] on a hearing involving Mr. Bowen only. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the Board took the matter under advisement. On or about January 16, 2004, the Board issued a written opinion denying Mr. Bowen's appeal. The opinion stated in relevant part: [The Board] is persuaded by the consistent and uniform past practice of the City of Annapolis in the administration of the Plan over a span of many years; by its own empirical experience in the intent, structure and implementation of the reclassification studies; by the opinions of experienced experts which have considered and decided the issues under review; and by the argument of counsel for the City. Thus the Board is not inclined to reject this long-standing interpretation of Section 3.36.150A1 as articulated herein. There is no credible evidence in the record of an analytical, legislative, judicial, or administrative nature or of any precedent or pattern of past practice to demonstrate a nexus between the structural reclassification of positions pursuant to Chapter 3 subsection 3.12.050B of the Civil Service Administration provisions of the City Code and the subsection 3.36.150A1 Cost-of-living provisions of the POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT PLAN. Thus, this Board cannot conclude that an intentional structural reclassification of on-going active duty positions within its salary structure under subsection 3.12.050B generates the unintentional consequences of an additional windfall cost-of-living adjustment to pension benefits for inactive ex-employees who have been retired from service for many years, under a separate unrelated Chapter of the Annapolis City Code. Thereafter, on February 9, 2004, fifty-nine retired employees filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Retroactive and Prospective Increases in Annuity Payments in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. [6] On June 17, 2004, the parties filed a joint stipulation indicating the issues they wished the Circuit Court to review. Cross-motions for summary judgment were then filed. The Circuit Court held a hearing on the motions on February 23, 2005. On December 23, 2005, the Circuit Court issued its written opinion, reversing the Board's decision and remanding the case back to the Civil Service Board for further proceedings. The Circuit Court held that the Board's interpretation of Section 3.36.150A1 was erroneous. According to the court, the City Code required Petitioners' pensions to be increased in tandem with increases given to their active duty counterparts. The Circuit Court stated in its written opinion: The plain meaning of the statute in the case at bar is clear and unambiguous, dictating that retirees are entitled to any increase in the pay scale for members of the same rank and years of service who are on active duty. (Emphasis added.) There is no other way to interpret this sentence but that the retirees are entitled to increases such as those from the Yarger and Hendricks studies. The statute even provides an alternative method for an increase in retirees' pension, by providing that the City Council may pass a resolution to increase the retirees' pension, in the event no increase in the pay scale of active members was given in a particular year. An increase in pension to which retirees are entitled is not limited by the second sentence of the ordinance, which allows a cost of living increase by resolution, but rather, the cost of living increase by resolution is an alternative method whereby retirees may still receive an annual pension increase, despite there being no increase in the pay scale for active members. Furthermore, the common and everyday meaning of the word any does not imply limitation unless the author or speaker explicitly indicates, any, but or any, except. In this situation, no such indication is made in the Code that any pay scale increase depends on the purpose for which it is given to the active duty members. The Circuit Court also held that the Board's decision to consider only Mr. Bowen's claim at the October 8, 2003 hearing was erroneous as a matter of law. The Circuit Court then disposed of the case by a written order stating: In accordance with the foregoing memorandum opinion, and upon consideration of the arguments of the parties and the record from the administrative agency below, it is on this 23rd day of December, 2005, by the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, ORDERED, that the decision of the Civil Service Board of the City of Annapolis be and hereby is REVERSED; and it is further, ORDERED, that the case be and hereby is REMANDED to the Annapolis City [sic] Service Board for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. The City noted a timely appeal to the Court of Special Appeals. In a reported opinion, the intermediate appellate court reversed the judgment of the Circuit Court, holding that what had been referred to as the equalization clause of Section 3.36.150A 1 applied only to discretionary cost-of-living adjustments granted by the City Council. Bowen, 173 Md.App. at 537, 920 A.2d at 63. Prior to reaching the merits of the appeal, however, the court denied Petitioners' motion to dismiss, wherein Petitioners argued that the intermediate appellate court did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the City Code did not provide a right to appeal the Circuit Court's review of a local administrative decision. Bowen, 173 Md.App. at 530-35, 920 A.2d at 59-62. The court held that Petitioners' complaint in the Circuit Court was in substance an action for a writ of mandamus, which is subject to review by the state appellate courts. Bowen, 173 Md.App. at 534, 920 A.2d at 61. We granted Petitioners' request for certiorari.