# Thomas A. Connors v. Village of Ridgefield Park

> New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · January 5, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9915422

## Case

- **Court:** New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
- **Decided:** January 5, 2024
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9915422

## Opinion text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-0256-22

THOMAS A. CONNORS,
CHARLES MARTINI, WILLIAM
MORTON, DENIS BARRY,
SALVATORE TOLENO, ROBERT
MORRIS, TIMOTHY LATOUR,
WAYNE FORSYTHE, and all
similarly situated individuals,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

VILLAGE OF RIDGEFIELD PARK,

Defendant-Respondent.
_______________________________

Argued October 24, 2023 – Decided January 5, 2024

Before Judges Gooden Brown and Puglisi.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Bergen County, Docket No. L-7742-20.

Marcia J. Mitolo argued the cause for appellants
(Limsky Mitolo, attorneys; Marcia J. Mitolo, of counsel
and on the briefs).
Philip N. Boggia argued the cause for respondent
(Boggia, Boggia & Betesh, LLC, and Fox Rothschild
LLP, attorneys; Philip N. Boggia, Joseph W. Voytus,
Kenneth Aaron Rosenberg, and Sara Hale Bernstein, on
the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiffs 1 Thomas Connors, William Morton, Denis Barry, Salvatore

Toleno, Robert Morris, Timothy LaTour, and Wayne Forsythe appeal from the

Law Division's August 31, 2022, order that denied their motion for summary

judgment, granted defendant Village of Ridgefield Park's motion for summary

judgment, and dismissed plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice. We affirm.

Plaintiffs, former police officers retired from Ridgefield Park, are over the

age of sixty-five and eligible for Medicare. The Police Benevolent Association

(PBA) Local 86 represents patrol officers and sergeants employed by Ridgefield

Park. Plaintiffs were active PBA members prior to their retirement and the PBA

continues to represent their interests as retirees.

Morton retired at the rank of captain on January 1, 1996, and Connors

retired at the rank of sergeant on February 1, 1998. The other plaintiffs retired

at the rank of patrol officer: Toleno on September 1, 1982; Forsythe on

1
Charles Martini voluntarily dismissed his claims with prejudice and did not
participate in this appeal.
A-0256-22
2
November 1, 1986; Barry on July 1, 1990; Morris on July 1, 1992; and LaTour

on February 1, 2001.

Ridgefield Park and the PBA have entered into contract negotiation

agreements (CNAs) since 1980. Prior to 1984, the CNAs did not provide for

retirees' medical health benefits. On January 10, 1984, the Board of

Commissioners of Ridgefield Park adopted Resolution No. 3, which "elect[ed]

to adopt the provisions of [the State Health Benefits Program (SHBP) Act] and

adhere to the rules and regulations promulgated by the State Health Benefits

Commission [(SHBC)] to implement the provisions of the law." The resolution

acknowledged certain rules and regulations of the SHBC, and adopted the

following provision:

WHEREAS, we hereby agree to pay the premium or
periodic charges for the benefits provided to all eligible
retired employees and their dependents covered under
the program, but not including survivors, if such
employees retired from a State or locally-administered
retirement system effective after the date the employer
adopted the [SHBP] on a benefit based on [twenty-five]
or more [years] of service credited in such retirement
system . . . and also to reimburse such retired employees
for their premium charges under Part B of the Federal
Medicare Program covering the retired employees and
their spouses in accordance with the regulations.

A-0256-22
3
Although the resolution referred to reimbursement of Part B premiums for

retirees and their spouses, this provision was not incorporated into the

subsequent CNA. Instead, the CNA entered in 1984 states:

The Village of Ridgefield Park shall pay insurance
benefits to employees of the Ridgefield Park Police
Department with [twenty-five] years or more of service
and certain employees who retired on disability pension
in accordance with Schedule A attached.

Schedule A provides:

Effective May 1st, 1984, the Village of Ridgefield Park
will provide health coverage for all elig[i]ble present
and future pensioners and their dependents which is
provided under [the SHBP] Act.

The conditions of this act provide[] that coverage will
be provided to present and future pensioners and their
dependents who retired, under the Police and Firemen's
Retirement System with [twenty-five] or more years of
service, as well as those employees who retire on
disability pensions based on fewer years of service
credited in the retirement system provided they are
eligible for such coverage under the aforementioned
law.

Although the successive CNAs covering the next thirty-four years

incorporated these provisions,2 Ridgefield Park never participated in the SHBP.

2
Because the PBA does not represent captains, Morton entered into a different
employment agreement that entitled him to the same "fringe benefits" including
medical coverage as other full-time employees of Ridgefield Park.

A-0256-22
4
Instead, it provided health benefits to employees and retirees either through a

self-funded plan or the Bergen Municipal Employee Benefits Fund. None of the

CNAs from 1980 through 2018 incorporated a specific provision requiring

Ridgefield Park to reimburse retirees for their spouses' Medicare Part B

premiums (spouses' premiums) as reflected in the resolution.

In 2015, Connors began submitting reimbursement applications for his

spouse's premiums, which Ridgefield Park denied. He raised the issue with the

PBA and, in March 2019, the PBA filed a grievance challenging Ridgefield

Park's denial. The parties selected an arbitrator and scheduled a hearing date in

February 2020, which was adjourned because Ridgefield Park and the PBA were

in negotiations to extend their existing CNA.

On March 19, 2020, the parties entered into a memorandum of agreement

(MOA) wherein the PBA agreed to withdraw the grievance "in [its] entirety and

with prejudice" and agreed "not to grieve the retiree health benefits issue in the

future." The MOA also provided that future CNAs would remove any reference

to the SHBP. Accordingly, the subsequent CNA, which covered 2019 through

2024, explicitly stated Ridgefield Park "shall not be responsible for reimbursing

any retiree for the Medicare Part B premiums incurred on behalf of his/her

spouse or other dependents."

A-0256-22
5
Six months later, the PBA issued a letter to all retired members informing

them: "For those of you who are unaware, as per the contract at the time of your

retirement, you are all eligible for Medicare Part B. If you are already enrolled

with Medicare Part B, you are entitled to reimbursement from the Village."

Plaintiffs, except for Forsythe and Morton, submitted vouchers seeking

reimbursement for their spouses' Medicare Part B premiums.3

Plaintiffs then filed a complaint in Superior Court seeking to compel

Ridgefield Park to reimburse spouses' premiums. Upon completion of

discovery, the parties cross-moved for summary judgment. On August 31, 2022,

Judge Robert C. Wilson denied plaintiffs' motion, granted defendant's motion

and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

In its written opinion, the court first noted the SHBP "permits, but does

not require, public employers to participate in the SHBP and reimburse retirees

and their spouses for Medicare Part B premiums." A non-state public employer

upon the adoption and submission to the division of an
appropriate resolution prescribed by the commission,
may pay the premium or periodic charges for the
benefits provided to a retired employee and the
employee's dependents covered under the program, . . .

3
Forsythe's and Morton's spouses were not eligible for Medicare until 2019,
after the MOA was executed. They did not seek reimbursement but were
presumably named plaintiffs in the complaint as to Count II, which seeks
declaratory judgment—anticipatory breach of contract.
A-0256-22
6
and may also reimburse the retired employee for the
employee's premium charges under Part B of Medicare
covering the retired employee and the employee's
spouse.

[N.J.S.A. 52:14-17.38(b)(1).]

Although Ridgefield Park adopted the resolution in 1984 memorializing

its decision to provide health care through the SHBP and incorporated Schedule

A in subsequent CNAs, it never filed the requisite documents with the SHBC

and took no further action to enroll in the SHBP. Thus, the trial court found

"the language included in the [CNAs] referencing the SHBP had no effect" and

rejected plaintiffs' argument that Ridgefield Park intended to provide the same

benefits as afforded under the SHBP. The court also noted none of the plaintiffs

had sought reimbursement until they received the PBA's advisement letter.

The court then addressed plaintiffs' claim Ridgefield Park should be

equitably estopped from refusing to reimburse for spouses' premiums. It found

Ridgefield Park never represented it would reimburse plaintiffs for spouses'

premiums and plaintiffs never relied on any alleged representation to their

detriment; therefore, plaintiffs failed to establish the grounds for equitable

estoppel.

Lastly, the court addressed plaintiffs' argument they were entitled to

reimbursement for spouses' premiums because the CNA at the time they retired

A-0256-22
7
provided for reimbursement. First, the judge reiterated his finding that none of

the CNAs required Ridgefield Park to reimburse spouses' premiums. The judge

then noted "retiree health benefits are not vested for life unless the collective

bargaining agreements expressly state so," citing M&G Polymers USA, LLC v.

Tackett, 574 U.S. 427, 442 (2015). After reviewing the CNA in effect at the

time of each plaintiff's retirement, the court determined none contained a

provision vesting retirees' health benefits for life. Thus, even if a prior CNA

had provided for reimbursement, the benefit would have applied only to that

CNA term because it was not specifically vested. Therefore, the court

determined the most recent CNA governed the terms of plaintiffs' health

benefits, and that CNA expressly provided retirees were not entitled to

reimbursement for spouses' premiums.

The court also found the PBA, through the MOA settling plaintiffs'

grievance, agreed to dismiss the grievance and not to bring similar grievances

in the future regarding reimbursement of spouses' Medicare Part B premiums.

Thus, the court found the matter was resolved through the MOA and plaintiffs

were contractually barred from bringing a suit raising the same issue.

In this appeal, plaintiffs raise a single issue for our consideration:

PURSUANT TO THE COLLECTIVE
NEGOTIATIONS AGREEMENT THE VILLAGE

A-0256-22
8
REIMBURSES RETIREES AND SPOUSES
MEDICAL BENEFITS UP TO MEDICARE AGE,
BUT ARBITRARILY REFUSES TO REIMBURSE
RETIREES' SPOUSES FOR MEDICARE PART B
COSTS.

We review the trial court's grant or denial of a motion for summary

judgment de novo, applying the same standard used by the trial court. Samolyk

v. Berthe, 251 N.J. 73 (2022); Stewart v. N.J. Tpk. Auth./Garden State Parkway,

249 N.J. 642, 655 (2022); Branch v. Cream-O-Land Dairy, 244 N.J. 567, 582

(2021). The appellate court considers "whether the competent evidential

materials presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving

party, are sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed

issue in favor of the non-moving party." Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,

142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995). The trial court's interpretation of a contract is also

reviewed de novo. Serico v. Rothberg, 234 N.J. 168, 178 (2018); Kieffer v. Best

Buy, 205 N.J. 213, 222 (2011).

Having reviewed the record in light of the applicable standards, we affirm

substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Wilson's well-reasoned decision.

We add the following comments.

Although Ridgefield Park apparently intended to join the SHBP, it never

took any action to do so and instead provided health insurance to employees and

A-0256-22
9
retirees through other plans. We agree with the trial court that any reference to

the SHBP in the CNAs had no effect. Even if we construe the CNAs to require

Ridgefield Park to provide insurance coverage comparable to the SHBP, as

plaintiffs urge us to do, the town nevertheless would not be compelled to

reimburse spouses' premiums because this benefit is discretionary. Pursuant to

N.J.S.A. 52:14-17.28(b)(1), an

employer other than the State . . . may pay the premium
or periodic charges for the benefits provided to a retired
employee and the employee’s dependents covered
under the program . . . and may also reimburse the
retired employee for the employee’s premium charges
under Part B of Medicare covering the retired employee
and the employee’s spouse.

Contrary to plaintiffs' contentions, these clauses are independent of each

other, and the town's decision to reimburse retirees' premiums does not amount

to partial performance requiring them to reimburse for spouses' premiums,

which it has never done.

We also agree with the judge's finding that because none of the CNAs in

place at the time of each plaintiff's retirement created a vested interest in retiree

benefits, the most recent CNA controls. Accordingly, the 2019-2024 CNA,

which explicitly states retirees are not entitled to reimbursement of their spouses'

Medicare Part B premiums, is dispositive of the issue.

A-0256-22
10
Because plaintiffs' claims fall short on their merits, we need not address

whether plaintiffs were contractually barred or estopped from bringing the

complaint because of the MOA. To the extent we have not expressly addressed

any issues raised by plaintiffs, it is because they lack sufficient merit to warrant

discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.

A-0256-22
11

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9915422. Public record. Not legal advice.