Skip to main content

Fratinardo v. Employees' Retirement System of the State

HAWAPPJanuary 28, 2013No. No. CAAP-12-0000054Cited 3 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Foley, Fujise, Reifurth
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal
State
Hawaii

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

The Hawaii Court of Appeals affirmed the ERS's determination that car, uniform, and firearm allowances paid to retired police officers should be excluded from the definition of 'compensation' for purposes of calculating retirement benefits under HRS Chapter 88, rejecting the officers' claims that these allowances should be included.

What This Ruling Means

# Court Case Summary: Fratinardo v. Employees' Retirement System of the State ## What Happened Fratinardo filed a lawsuit against the Employees' Retirement System of the State, an organization that manages retirement benefits for state workers. The case involved employment law issues, though specific details of the dispute are limited in available court records. ## What the Court Decided The Hawaii Court of Appeals dismissed the case on January 28, 2013. Fratinardo did not receive any monetary damages from this ruling. ## Why This Matters for Workers This case demonstrates that not all employment disputes result in compensation for workers. When cases are dismissed, it typically means the court found insufficient legal grounds to proceed—either the claim didn't meet legal requirements or didn't fit established employment law protections. For state workers and retirees dealing with retirement system issues, this ruling shows that courts carefully evaluate whether complaints meet the standards necessary to move forward. Workers facing similar situations should understand that dismissal can happen even when a worker believes they've been wronged, highlighting the importance of understanding employment law before pursuing legal action.

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 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.