Court issues ruling on Chapter 78 retiree contributions
A Superior Court judge recently ruled in Squitieri v . Passaic County et al that Passaic County cannot require certain assistant prosecutors to contribute toward health insurance and prescription coverage in retirement . We understand that many officers have heard of the ruling and are questioning whether it favorably resolves the issue of medical benefits in retirement . While this was certainly a favorable decision for the assistant prosecutor who brought the lawsuit , the court ’ s decision probably will not have any general application and is binding only on the parties to the lawsuit . It also does not address one of the key issues that the NJ State PBA has been concerned about with the enactment of Chapter 78 – specifically whether officers who did not have 20 years of pensionable service as of June 28 , 2011 or , alternatively , as of the expiration of a contract in effect on that date , are not required to contribute toward their health insurance coverage .
This is the specific issue we are litigating in Mercer County . The Passaic County lawsuit was based upon a unique set of circumstances . But the decision represents an inroad into the harshness of Chapter 78 , particularly if there is an appeal and it is upheld .
The basic facts are as follows : Passaic County and the Assistant Prosecutors Association entered into a Memorandum of Agreement ( MOA ) in 2008 , by which the county agreed that 45 assistant prosecutors who were listed in Appendix A of the MOA did not have to pay for health insurance and prescription coverage when they retired , as long as they had 25 years of pensionable service and were employed by Passaic County at the time of retirement . There were no references to the number of years of pensionable service for the employees on the list . After Chapter 78 became effective , and after the assistant prosecutors completed Tier 4 of their contributions in 2016 , the terms of the MOA were incorporated into the Collective Negotiations Agreement ( CNA ) between the association and the county .
In discussing the terms of the MOA with members of the association , the county confirmed that it would honor its obligations under the agreement even after the enactment of Chapter 78 . From June 28 , 2011 , when Chapter 78 became effective , until 2016 , 14 individuals listed in the settlement agreement retired and did not have to pay for health insurance or prescription coverage in retirement . When the terms of the MOA were incorporated into the negotiated collective negotiations agreement in 2016 , the county repeated its commitment that it would honor its obligations under the MOA even in light of Chapter 78 .
In November 2016 , the plaintiff in the case advised the county that she intended to retire on Oct . 1 , 2017 . She would have had 25 years of pensionable service at that time and fully expected
10 NEW JERSEY COPS ■ JANUARY 2018