Skip to main content

JENNY STANKOWSKI VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES (PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM)

NJSUPERCTAPPDIVMay 28, 2019No. A-0450-17T2
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unpublished
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The appellate court reversed the Board of Trustees' denial of accidental disability retirement benefits and remanded the case for further proceedings, finding the Board's rejection of the Administrative Law Judge's decision granting benefits was not supported by substantial evidence.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened:** Jenny Stankowski had a dispute with the Board of Trustees of the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS), which manages retirement benefits for government workers in New Jersey. While the specific details aren't clear from the available information, this case involved employment law issues related to her pension or retirement benefits. Stankowski likely disagreed with a decision the retirement system made about her benefits, employment status, or pension calculations. **What the Court Decided:** The court's specific ruling in this case is not available in the provided information. The case was heard by New Jersey's Superior Court Appellate Division in May 2019, but the outcome details were not included. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This type of case highlights an important issue for public employees - disputes over retirement benefits can end up in court when workers disagree with their pension system's decisions. Public employees have the right to challenge retirement benefit determinations through the legal system. Workers should keep detailed records of their employment and understand their pension rights, as retirement benefits are often a significant part of their overall compensation package.

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

Similar Rulings

CHRISTOPHERSON
W.D. Pa.Nov 2023
Remanded
STEPHEN STANZIANO v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ETC. (PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM)
NJSUPERCTAPPDIVJul 2022
Defendant Win
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
People in re S.L. and A.L
COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff 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.