In re Farmington Teachers Association

969 A.2d 422 (2009)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re Farmington Teachers Association

New Hampshire Supreme Court
969 A.2d 422 (2009)

EL

Facts

In New Hampshire, retired teachers’ yearly pensions under the New Hampshire Retirement System (NHRS) (defendant) were based on the teachers’ average earnable compensation for their three highest-earning years of teaching service. These three highest years of earnings included overtime, holiday, and longevity pay, cost-of-living bonus, pay for extracurricular-activity duty, and the fair market value of noncash compensation. The Farmington Teachers Association, NEA New Hampshire (the union) (plaintiff) agreed with their local school district to include the teachers’ health-insurance premiums—formerly paid directly by the school district—in a teacher’s wages if the teacher opted into this arrangement. The teacher would then agree to repay the premium funds back to the school district. This arrangement artificially inflated teachers’ reported earnings on W-2 statements. For several years, teachers could retire with their three highest years of income including these later-reimbursed premium payments. After an inquiry from a retired school-district employee, the NHRS board investigated the compensation arrangement. The NHRS board concluded the arrangement was improper. The NHRS board provided teachers who had elected into the scheme with a Notice of Earnable Compensation Contribution and Pension Adjustment and advised the teachers the temporary health-insurance-premium payments did not qualify as earned income in the teachers’ employment records for purposes of adjusting their pensions upward. The union appealed the NHRS board’s decision. After a three-day hearing on the issue, the NHRS hearing examiner recommended the NHRS board uphold its decision that the premium payments did not count as earned compensation for purposes of determining a teacher’s pension amount. The NHRS board adopted the hearing examiner’s recommendation. The union appealed the decision to the state supreme court.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Broderick, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 742,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership