Retirement Board of the Employees' Retirement System of the City of Providence v. Frank E. Corrente and Mayor of the City of Providence

RIDecember 15, 2017No. 15-246, 244, 243

RemandedFrank E. Corrente and Mayor of the City of Providence

Case Details

Status: Published
Procedural Posture: appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Excerpt

These consolidated appeals arose from a decision of the Retirement Board of the Employees' Retirement System of the City of Providence (the board) to reduce the pension benefits of Frank E. Corrente (Corrente) following multiple federal convictions, pursuant to the Honorable Service Ordinance (HSO), Chapter 17, Article VI, Sec. 17-189.1 of the City of Providence Code of Ordinances (as enacted in 1999). The board brought an action in the Superior Court to confirm its decision. Corrente also sought confirmation of the board's decision, but requested a tax credit on the pension benefits that he had received but was required to return to the board. The Mayor of the City of Providence (the mayor) and the City of Providence (the city) intervened in the action and challenged the board's decision to reduce, rather than revoke, Corrente's pension benefits. A justice of the Superior Court confirmed the board's decision and remanded the issue of the tax credit to the board. The board denied Corrente's request for a tax credit and the Superior Court declined to overrule this decision. The following appeals were before the Supreme Court: (1) Corrente's appeal from the Superior Court's judgment denying his request for a tax credit (2) the intervenors' appeal that challenged the board's decision to reduce, rather than revoke, Corrente's pension benefits and (3) the board's cross-appeal from the Superior Court's decision that allowed the mayor and the city to intervene under Rule 24(a) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court held that: (1) the Superior Court justice appropriately reviewed the board's decision to deny Corrente's request for a tax credit (2) the board's decision to reduce Corrente's pension benefits was not arbitrary, capricious, or affected by other errors or law and (3) the Superior Court justice did not err or abuse his discretion in allowing the mayor and the city to intervene. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's

What This Ruling Means

This case involved a dispute over pension benefits for Frank Corrente, a Providence city employee who was convicted of federal crimes. After Corrente's convictions, the city's Retirement Board decided to reduce his pension benefits under the "Honorable Service Ordinance" - a local law that allows the city to cut pensions when employees are convicted of certain crimes. The Retirement Board asked the court to confirm their decision to reduce Corrente's pension. Meanwhile, Corrente challenged this decision, arguing against the pension cuts. The case went through the court system, and ultimately the court sent the matter back (remanded it) to lower courts for further proceedings, meaning the dispute wasn't fully resolved. **What this means for workers:** This case highlights an important reality about public employee pensions - they aren't always guaranteed, even after you've earned them. If you're a government worker and get convicted of certain crimes, your employer may be able to reduce or eliminate your pension benefits under local laws. Workers should understand that pension benefits can potentially be at risk if legal troubles arise, and the specific rules vary by location and employer.

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

Similar Rulings

Jane Doe v. Brown University

RIJun 2021

The plaintiff, Jane Doe, appealed from a Superior Court judgment dismissing her complaint against the defendants, Brown University and two of its employees. In Superior Court, the plaintiff asserted claims under both the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act (RICRA) and article 1, section 2 of the Rhode Island Constitution. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the hearing justice erred in determining that her claims under RICRA were precluded by the prior dismissal of the plaintiff's federal Title IX claim. The plaintiff also argued that the hearing justice erred in holding that section 2 of article 1 of the Rhode Island Constitution does not grant the plaintiff a private right of action. The Supreme Court first held that the plaintiff's claims under RICRA were predicated upon the defendants' alleged violations of Title IX, which had already been litigated in federal court. Further, the Supreme Court stated that the resolution of that issue in federal court was essential to the judgment on the merits and, therefore, issue preclusion barred the plaintiff's claim in Superior Court. The Supreme Court also held that the plaintiff's claim that the defendants interfered with her contract with an educational institution was not actionable. Next, the Supreme Court examined the antidiscrimination clause contained in section 2 of article 1 of the Rhode Island Constitution and held that it was not self executing. Further, the Supreme Court held that principles of judicial restraint prevented the Court from creating a private right of action under these circumstances. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.

Defendant Win

Read Full Opinion More Frank E. Corrente and Mayor of the City of Providence Rulings All Rulings

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

Check Your Rights Learn the Basics

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.