Retirement – Teacher – Enrollment

Listen to this article

Where the Massachusetts Teachers’ Retirement System (MTRS) denied a petitioner’s request to participate in the benefits program known as Retirement Plus, that decision should be upheld because of the petitioner’s failure to file an enrollment document during the first half of 2001.

“This is an appeal from a decision of the Massachusetts Teachers’ Retirement System (MTRS) denying petitioner Lynne Girouard’s request to participate in the benefits program known as Retirement Plus. … MTRS moves for summary decision.

“A prior order advised Ms. Girouard that her failure to oppose MTRS’s motion may be construed as an agreement that the motion is meritorious. … Ms. Girouard has filed nothing further. It therefore appears that no live dispute is being prosecuted. …

“MTRS’s motion is also meritorious in substance. Retirement Plus came into effect in 2001. Individuals who were then teachers and MTRS members could join Retirement Plus by filing an enrollment document during the first half of 2001. … There is no dispute that Ms. Girouard did not satisfy this condition. Belated enrollments into Retirement Plus are generally impermissible. …

“Ms. Girouard’s claim on appeal is that she withdrew her accumulated retirement contributions from MTRS in approximately 1990 and therefore was not an active or inactive member in 2001. … Essentially for the reasons stated in MTRS’s brief, Ms. Girouard has not demonstrated a reasonable expectation of prevailing on this point of fact. … According to MTRS records evidenced by MTRS’s exhibits — even if indirectly — Ms. Girouard has remained a member of the system since 1989, with no intervening withdrawal of contributions. MTRS’s records are entitled to a presumption of regularity. …

“The presumption of regularity is not conclusive, but Ms. Girouard has shown no reasonable expectation of rebutting it. She says that she ‘took the money after leaving [her original] job.’ That assertion, unsupported by record documents, is too ‘vague, non-specific and general’ to carry weight. … MTRS also offers a plausible explanation for Ms. Girouard’s recollection, i.e., that at some point, she did receive a partial refund of certain overpaid contributions.

“In view of the foregoing, it is ordered that MTRS’s motion for summary decision is allowed. Summary decision is hereby entered to the effect that MTRS’s decision is affirmed.”

Girouard v. Massachusetts Teachers’ Retirement System (Lawyers Weekly No. 27-055-25) (2 pages) (Malkiel, Administrative Magistrate) (Docket No. CR-25-0030) (April 25, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.