Skip to main content

John R. Grasso v. Gina Raimondo

RIFebruary 12, 2018No. 16-83-15-378Cited 8 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Suttell, Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, Indeglia
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 Rhode Island Supreme Court vacated the Superior Court's judgment in favor of a former police officer, holding that he must comply with statutory provisions requiring independent medical exams and pension adjustments based on gainful employment to continue receiving his accidental disability pension.

Excerpt

These consolidated cases came before the Supreme Court on an appeal and a petition for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for review of a November 5, 2015 bench decision in Providence County Superior Court in favor of the plaintiff, John R. Grasso. The defendants, Governor Gina Raimondo, Frank Karpinski, the Employees' Retirement System of Rhode Island, and the State of Rhode Island, contended before the Supreme Court that the trial justice erred in determining that Mr. Grasso need not comply with G.L. 1956 §§ 45-21-23 and 45-21-24 in order to continue receiving his accidental disability pension because, in his view, those sections were not applicable to his pension. The Supreme Court held that Mr. Grasso was indeed required to comply with §§ 45-21-23 and 45-21-24 and, as such, could be required to undergo independent medical examinations and disclose information with respect to gainful employment as conditions of his accidental disability pension under G.L. 1956 § 45-21.2-10. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Superior Court.

What This Ruling Means

**Court Rules Against State Employee in Pension Dispute** This case involved John Grasso, a state employee who challenged Rhode Island's retirement system rules. Grasso argued he shouldn't have to follow certain requirements, including undergoing independent medical examinations and having his pension adjusted if he worked as an attorney after retirement. The state's retirement system and Governor Gina Raimondo defended these rules as necessary parts of the pension process. The Rhode Island Supreme Court sided with the state, overturning a lower court decision that had favored Grasso. The court ruled that Grasso must comply with the statutory requirements for independent medical exams and accept that his pension could be adjusted based on any gainful employment he pursued as an attorney after retirement. **What this means for workers:** This ruling reinforces that retired state employees cannot simply ignore pension system rules they find inconvenient. Workers planning for retirement should carefully review their pension plan requirements, as courts will generally enforce these rules as written. The decision shows that pension benefits often come with ongoing obligations and restrictions, even after retirement begins. State employees should understand these requirements before making retirement decisions.

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

Similar Rulings

Lillian Rivera v. Employees' Retirement System of Rhode Island
RIApr 2013
Plaintiff Win
Rivera
RISUPERCTMar 2011
Defendant Win
James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result
Umland v. PLANCO Financial Services, Inc.
3rd CircuitSep 2008
Defendant Win
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

Browse Related

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.

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.