ALONSO

**Court Rules in Favor of Worker in Pension Dispute** This case involved a dispute between a worker named Hartnett and the City of Boston over pension benefits. The city apparently tried to reduce Hartnett's pension using an "anti-spiking" rule, which is designed to prevent workers from artificially inflating their final salary to boost their retirement benefits. The city claimed this rule applied because of salary increases in the years 1990 and 2002. The court sided with Hartnett, ruling that the anti-spiking provision did not apply to his situation. The judges found that 1990 and 2002 cannot be considered "two consecutive years" because they are not back-to-back years. The court interpreted the rule's language literally, saying "consecutive years" must mean years that follow one after another without any gap between them. **What This Means for Workers:** This decision protects workers' pension rights by requiring employers to follow the exact wording of pension rules. When employers try to reduce benefits using technical provisions, courts will carefully examine whether those rules actually apply. Workers can take comfort knowing that pension regulations will be interpreted precisely, not stretched beyond their plain meaning to deny benefits.