Retirement – Purchase of contract service

Listen to this article

Where the State Board of Retirement denied a petitioner’s request to purchase contract service, that decision should be upheld because the petitioner’s prior work as an instructor for the Middlesex Sheriff’s Office was not substantially similar to her work for the Department of Developmental Services.

“Petitioner Gail Bartlett timely appealed, under G.L.c. 32, §16(4), respondent State Board of Retirement’s (SBR) denial of her request to purchase contract service under Section 4(1)(s) of Chapter 32. …

“Ms. Bartlett worked for the Middlesex Sheriff’s Office (MSO) from 2006 to 2010 as a contract instructor. …

“She taught ‘incarcerated adult inmates in basic education, literacy, or English as a Second Language classes, or in classes preparing to earn a (GED) General Educational Development or high school equivalency credential.’ …

“Ms. Bartlett began working for the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) on January 21, 2008, as a service coordinator II/human services coordinator II. She became a member of the Massachusetts State Employees’ Retirement System (MSERS) at that time. …

“On June 23, 2022, Ms. Bartlett applied to purchase service for time that she worked for the MSO from September 28, 2006, to September 30, 2010. …

“The SBR denied her application on March 13, 2025, because Ms. Bartlett’s work for the MSO was not ‘the same or similar’ as her work for DDS. …

“In this case, the two job descriptions do not contain core duties that are substantially similar. The job description for Ms. Bartlett’s work as an instructor for incarcerated adult inmates in basic education, literacy, English as a Second Language, and GED preparation included preparing the curriculum and lessons; communicating the class objectives to the students; and evaluating the student’s qualifications, abilities, progress, and limitations. In contrast, Ms. Bartlett’s job description for her work as a DDS service coordinator II/human services coordinator II included providing supervision to service coordinators and other staff; participating in planning, policy development, and resource allocation; providing direct advocacy and support to DDS service recipients; and providing training to staff and service providers. These two job descriptions do not describe substantially similar work; one involves teaching inmates English and basic literacy skills and the other involves working with DDS staff and service recipients.

“In an effort to bolster the similarities between these two jobs, Ms. Bartlett created a chart to highlight the 14 commonalities between the two roles. For example, she noted that as an instructor, she oversaw ‘a class of students’ and as a service coordinator II/human services coordinator II she oversaw ‘a group of coordinators.’ According to Ms. Bartlett, the similarity is that both tasks involved being ‘responsible for a particular group.’ However, the ‘‘substantially similar’ test looks to one’s duties, not the knowledge needed to perform those duties.’ … Although Ms. Bartlett listed general descriptions of the skills and knowledge that she used for both jobs, the job descriptions include duties and responsibilities that are not substantially similar. As a result, Ms. Bartlett has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to purchase the time during which she worked as a contract instructor for the MSO. …

“The decision of the SBR is hereby affirmed.”

Bartlett v. State Board of Retirement (Lawyers Weekly No. 27-014-26) (5 pages) (Goldberg, Administrative Magistrate) (Division of Administrative Law Appeals) Gail Bartlett, pro se; John Durgin for the respondent (Docket No. CR-25-0236) (Feb. 6, 2026).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.