Could a Connecticut teacher buy retirement service credit for time spent on disciplinary suspension?

Plain-English summary

The Connecticut Attorney General concluded that a teacher could not make Teachers' Retirement Fund contributions to earn service credit for a period covered by his disciplinary suspension. The governing 1991 statute treated a formal leave of absence as one granted by the employer and shown in records created at the time. The teacher's signed agreement instead called the time an unpaid disciplinary suspension, withheld benefits and service credit for the school year, and said the discipline was for just cause. The superintendent also denied his request to complete the retirement system's leave form because the school had placed him on suspension.

The opinion distinguished a suspension imposed as discipline from leave formally granted by an employer. It applied that distinction to the contemporaneous agreement and school records. Although the agreement let the teacher continue group insurance at his own expense, it did not authorize retirement credit; the Attorney General said even an agreement term would not prevail over an inconsistent provision of the retirement statute.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1991. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Historical summary

For the teacher in the request: His suspension agreement was the controlling contemporaneous record. The Attorney General found no formally granted leave in it and concluded that he could not contribute to the retirement fund for service credit during the suspension.

For school boards: The opinion looked to the employer's records from the time of the absence to distinguish formal leave from discipline. This board's agreement expressly denied benefits and service credit for the school year and described the absence as suspension.

For retirement administrators: The opinion agreed that the administrator could refuse contributions for the period. It quoted the formal-leave definition in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-183b(15) and discussed the regulation requiring employer records created when a leave was granted.

Common questions

Does an unpaid disciplinary suspension count as formal leave for teacher pension credit?

The Attorney General said this suspension did not. The employer's contemporaneous agreement called it discipline and denied service credit, while the 1991 statute required a formally granted leave supported by employer records.

Could the teacher keep contributing to the retirement system during his suspension to earn credit?

No. The opinion concluded that he could not make contributions for credit during this disciplinary suspension because he was not on a qualifying formal leave.

Did permission to continue group insurance make the suspension a leave of absence?

No. The opinion noted that the agreement allowed insurance continuation at the teacher's own cost, but it did not say he could accrue retirement credit or change the agreement's description of the absence as discipline.

Background and statutory framework

The State Teachers' Retirement Board asked whether a disciplinary suspension in lieu of possible dismissal fell within the formal-leave rule. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-183b(18) described when a member on formal leave could retain active status while making contributions. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-183b(15) defined formal leave by the employer's contemporaneous records. After a hearing requested under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-183y, the board sought the Attorney General's interpretation. The opinion answered the legal question by examining the signed suspension agreement and the employer's treatment of the absence.

Citations and references

The original opinion quotes the retirement statutes, the leave regulation, and the relevant terms of the suspension agreement below.

Source

• Landing page: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Opinions
• Opinion page: https://portal.ct.gov/ag/opinions/1991-formal-opinions/john-r-shears-administrator-state-teachers-retirement-board-1991029-formal-opinion-attorney-general

Original opinion text

John R. Shears, Administrator, State Teachers' Retirement Board, 1991-029 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

Attorney General's Opinion

Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal

August 9, 1991

John R. Shears, Administrator

State Teachers' Retirement Board

165 Capitol Avenue

Hartford, CT 06106

Dear Mr. Shears:

This is in response to your letter of April 11, 1991 in which you relate that the State Teachers' Retirement Board has requested our advice on the eligibility of a member of the Teachers' Retirement System to purchase additional service credits toward retirement for time while under disciplinary suspension.

The facts surrounding this situation are largely determinative of the answer to this question and are as follows: On December 20, 1990, Stephen Sekula, a teacher in the Madison School System was arrested for Larceny in the First Degree related to computer and electronic equipment belonging to the school system, On March 13, 1991, his application accelerated rehabilitation on this charge was granted by the court, and Mr. Sekula was placed on one year's probation. On January 21, 1991 Mr. Sekula entered into an agreement with the Madison Board of Education whereby he agreed to "accept a disciplinary suspension, without pay or any benefits, effective January 22, 1991." The preamble to that signed agreement states that Mr. Sekula "offered to accept the discipline ... in lieu of the board proceeding further on the motion to consider termination of his contract of employment." The agreement further provides that Mr. Sekula "shall receive no seniority or service credit for his employment with the Madison Board of Education during the 1990-91 school year, "He shall be on a one year probation for that school year." Finally, by signing the agreement to accept a disciplinary suspension, Mr. Sekula agreed that the suspension was "for just cause."

Subsequent to entering into this agreement, Mr. Sekula requested of the Superintendent of Schools that he be allowed to complete the formal leave of absence application form provided by the Teachers' Retirement Board. Mr. Sekula was denied permission to complete the form by the Superintendent who told Mr. Sekula that he was not on a leave of absence, but, rather, was on a disciplinary suspension. Mr. Sekula then sought to make contributions to the Teachers Retirement System claiming he was on a formal leave of absence granted by the Madison Board of Education. The Administrator of the System refused to accept these contributions because he did not believe that the disciplinary suspension in lieu of dismissal constituted a formal leave of absence granted by the Board of Education. Mr. Sekula then sought a hearing before the State Teachers' Retirement Board pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-183y. The Board granted his request for a hearing, and, after the hearing, the Board decided to inquire of this office "if the definition of "formal leave of absence" indeed encompasses a disciplinary suspension." For the reasons set forth below the answer to the Board's question is no.

The Teachers' Retirement System is established under Chapter 167a of the General Statutes. Mr. Sekula is a member of that System as that term is defined in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-183b(18). That statute provides, in part, that:

A member who, during the period of formal leave of absence granted by his or her employer, but not exceeding an aggregate of ten school months, continues to make mandatory contributions to the board, retains his or her status as an active member.

"Formal leave of absence" is defined in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-183b(15) as:

any absence from active service in the public schools of Connecticut formally granted by a member's employer as evidenced by contemporary records of the employer, provided in the case of an absence due to illness, medical or other evidence of such illness may, at the discretion of the teachers' retirement board, be accepted in lieu of evidence of the formal granting of a leave.

Also germane to the Board's question is Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies. Sec. 10-1831-21, Leaves of Absence:

(a) Creditable leaves. An absence from active teaching service in the public schools of this state shall be creditable toward retirement provided such absence is a formal leave of absence granted by a teacher's employer, or is an absence due to illness. A member establishes that a formal leave of absence has been granted by his or her employer though records of the employer created at the time the leave of absence was granted. A member establishes that an absence was due to illness either by means of employer records which indicate a formal leave of absence was granted by the employer or through medical or other evidence satisfactory to the Board. A member who is performing active service in a teaching position at less than full time is not considered to be absent from active teaching service.

Clearly, the situation presented does not fall within leaves of absence due to illness. More accurately stated, then, the Board's question is whether a disciplinary suspension in lieu of termination constitutes a leave of absence formally granted by the member's employer as reflected in records of the employer created at the time the leave of absence was granted.

It is the position of Mr. Sekula that the imposition of a disciplinary suspension on him by the Board is the same as a formal leave of absence granted by the Board. However, the statute states that a leave of absence must be "formally granted by a member's employer as evidenced by contemporary records of the employer." Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-183b(15). In Mr. Sekula's case the contemporary records of the employer do not express that a leave of absence was formally granted but rather that a disciplinary suspension was imposed. The Superintendent of Schools told Mr. Sekula that he could not fill out the application for leave of absence because he was on disciplinary suspension, not a leave of absence.

Mr. Sekula's claimed leave of absence can only be construed in terms of the agreement he signed, which states that he is agreeing to a disciplinary suspension. The agreement by its terms specifically states that he will receive no benefits during the time of his disciplinary suspension. The agreement also states that Mr. Sekula may continue his insurance policies under the group policies at his own cost. However, the agreement does not state that he may continue to accrue retirement credits during his suspension, nor would such a provision prevail over any inconsistent provision of Chapter 167a. Therefore the contemporary records of Mr. Sekula's employer do not indicate that he has been granted a leave of absence.

A disciplinary suspension is not a leave of absence. It is not formally granted by the employer. The term "grant" is defined as: "to permit as a right, privilege indulgence or favor" [Webster's Third New International Dictionary, G&C Merrian Co. Springfield, MA (1965)]. Mr. Sekula was not "granted" a leave of absence but rather a he accepted an involuntary termination of his employment. Accordingly, it is our determination based on the acts of this case that Mr.. Sekula's disciplinary suspension is not a leave of Absence as that term is defined in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-183b(15), and that he may not make contributions to the Teachers' Retirement Fund to obtain credit for the time of his disciplinary suspension.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Robert A. Whitehead

Assistant Attorney General

RB/RAW/eh