Skip to main content

Maturo v. State Employees Retirement Commission

Conn.July 11, 2017No. SC19831Cited 13 times
Defendant WinState Employees Retirement Commission
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Rogers, Palmer, Eveleigh, McDonald, Espinosa, Robinson
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment upholding the State Employees Retirement Commission's decision to suspend the plaintiff's disability pension upon his re-election as mayor, finding that statutory language plainly barred pension collection while employed by a participating municipality.

What This Ruling Means

What Happened
Anthony Maturo was a retired state employee who received a disability pension from Connecticut's State Employees Retirement Commission. When he was re-elected as mayor of East Haven, the retirement commission suspended his disability pension payments. Maturo sued the commission, claiming they broke their contract with him by stopping his pension while he worked as mayor.

What the Court Decided
The Connecticut Supreme Court sided with the retirement commission. The court found that state law clearly prohibits collecting a state disability pension while working for any Connecticut municipality that participates in the state retirement system. Since East Haven participates in this system, Maturo could not collect his pension while serving as mayor.

Why This Matters for Workers
This ruling clarifies an important rule for public employees in Connecticut: you generally cannot collect a state disability pension while working for another government entity that's part of the same retirement system. Workers receiving disability pensions should carefully review the rules before taking any government job, even elected positions, as it could result in losing pension benefits. The court emphasized that the law's language was clear and left no room for exceptions.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.