Five government employees are suing New Hampshire over retirement pensions they say they were promised but are being unconstitutionally withheld.
The class action lawsuit filed by a police officer, a firefighter, and two active and one retired corrections employees, represents about 1,600 people, according to the court filing.
“This lawsuit represents the culmination of years of effort to correct the wrongs inflicted upon New Hampshire’s first responders – the guardians and caretakers of our communities,” Seifu Ragassa, the president of the NH Group II Retirement Coalition said in a press release. “We have exhausted legislative channels and have attempted negotiations, but the state continues to turn a blind eye to the plight of its most dedicated public servants. Now, we are taking legal action to ensure fairness and justice.”
The suit asks the court to adjust their retirement benefits to meet the calculations they say they were promised at the time of hire because after-the-fact changes violated the equal protection and other rights outlined in the U.S. and New Hampshire constitutions.
The issue dates back to 2011, when the Legislature changed the pension formula for some employees who’d been on the job for less than a decade. This happened in part because the retirement system was facing a $4.3 billion unfunded liability – the benefit pay-out obligations it had to employees. The state system had about 57% of the funding on hand at the time to cover its projected future obligations, according to Marty Karlon, the New Hampshire Retirement System’s director of communications and legislative affairs.
While the unfunded liability has grown to $5.5 billion, the nominal value of the assets is higher, meaning the system is actually in a better place financially now with a funded ratio percentage of 67.5%, Karlon said. Put simply, the state now has more assets versus liabilities than it did in 2011 when the law was changed.
The Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire sued the state after the changes were first made, but the state’s Supreme Court ultimately sided with the state.
The New Hampshire Group II Retirement Coalition, which formed in response to these cuts, alleges they affected scores of first responders who were enrolled in the system for less than 10 years, including firefighters, nurses, and police, corrections and parole officers who were forced to work longer careers with lesser pensions than their predecessors. The organization has advocated for the restoration of pensions and benefits that they say were promised to them at the time of hire, allowing them to retire after 20 years of service with pensions calculated based on their top three earning years.
As a result of those cuts, Ragassa, the state’s chief parole and probation officer and the group’s president, says some are leaving New Hampshire for more competitive benefits.
“This has created a serious challenge for our state’s ability to retain the talented professionals who keep us safe,” he writes in a message on the coalition’s website.
State officials have made some recent changes in this area. Gov. Chris Sununu signed a bill in July that changes the multiplier, which factors into retirees’ annual pension amount. He also transferred $26 million to the Group II retirement fund earlier in October to close that gap.
The coalition maintains that’s a fraction of what’s needed.
Sununu, when asked about the lawsuit on Wednesday, said the state has done what it can.
“The Legislature in particular went above and beyond to try and find a common-ground solution that was affordable, that wasn’t going to bankrupt the system, that closed this gap and loophole,” Sununu said.
He also said he doesn’t think a lawsuit is the way to go about fixing this, saying they “rarely result in a net benefit for everyone.”
“There seems to be an attitude lately where if you don’t get everything you want, you sue,” Sununu said. “If we meet in the middle and find common ground, that’s great in the moment, and then you go sue because you didn’t get everything you wanted. I think that’s a very bad way to go about trying to get and advocate for your constituencies. At the end of the day, it burns more bridges than anything, it causes more separation, and it doesn’t bring a faster result.”
Charlotte Matherly is the statehouse reporter for the Concord Monitor and Monadnock Ledger-Transcript in partnership with Report for America. Follow her on X at @charmatherly, or send her an email at cmatherly@cmonitor.com.
These articles are being shared by partners in the Granite State News Collaborative. For more information, visit collaborativenh.org.
