finding that state forfeiture statute did not mandate automatic forfeiture of pensions in every instance of misconduct, in part because of the "national public policy of secure retirement income”
How later courts described this case
- finding that state forfeiture statute did not mandate automatic forfeiture of pensions in every instance of misconduct, in part because of the "national public policy of secure retirement income”
- recognizing that “[pjublic pensions provide public employees with employment stability and financial security”
- in analyzing the legislative intent of a pension forfeiture statute, the Court acknowledged two predilections that weighed against a total pension forfeiture including that "forfeiture – whether of one's pension or any other property or benefit to which one is otherwise entitled – is a penalty or a punishment for wrongful conduct" and that it is also "'remedial in character.'" (citations omitted)
- noting that Uricoli was barred from claiming deferred retirement benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:16A-11.2, the PFRS analog to N.J.S.A. 53:5A-28
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PASHMAN, J.,
concurring.
I fully concur with the result and the reasoning of the majority opinion. I write merely to clarify my view of the basis for the Court’s decision.
*80 I agree with the majority that the law of forfeiture of public pensions has undergone significant change in recent years. Ante at 67-69. We have come to recognize the changing social role of pensions in modern times. They are no longer mere gratuities, nor are they luxuries. To most public employees, pensions represent a necessary form of deferred compensation designed to provide economic security in retirement. It therefore seems unfair to require total forfeiture of pensions for acts that are insufficiently grave or unrelated to one’s public employment. To do so would violate our sense that employees are entitled to the compensation that they have earned through years of public service. Complete deprivation of pensions counted on to support public employees and their families during retirement years is a very harsh punishment.
On the other hand, it is unfair to use taxpayer’s money to provide for individuals who have seriously abused their public trust. We sense that such compensation is undeserved. Yet this would be the result if pensions were indefeasibly “vested” after a certain number of years of service.
We have therefore rejected both these extreme positions. Instead we have devised a legal standard that can give some expression to both our conflicting ideas of fairness. As I stated in Makwinski v. State, 76 N.J. 86, 93 (1978) (Pashman, J., concurring):
The paramount importance of public employees acting honestly in accordance with the public trust placed in them is self-evident. I fully support the rule that dishonorable service requires total forfeiture of pension rights, even one which has “vested” after 25 years of honorable service. However, Makwinski’s service was not rendered dishonorable for purposes of this principle by this single, isolated improper act. Yet, plaintiffs misconduct was serious enough to require our strenuous disapproval, and we trust that our terminating plaintiffs accrual of pension rights as of the date of his misconduct some five years before he retired will make that point. In a different factual setting, a public employee should not expect to retain any part of his pension.
The Court’s decision today adopts this fact-oriented approach. I agree that flexibility is the best way to satisfy our conflicting goals. In applying this balance, I agree with the Court’s recognition that we have come to view pensions primarily as deferred *81 compensation, which should not be completely forfeited except in the most egregious cases. Whether misconduct in a given case rises to the level of “dishonorable service” should be determined on a case-by-case basis. The majority opinion develops reasonable standards to guide determinations of whether public pensions should be forfeited, partly or completely, by those who have not kept faith with their public responsibilities.