Retirement – Group 2 – Social worker

Listen to this article

Where the State Board of Retirement denied a petitioner’s request to be classified in Group 2 under G.L.c. 32, §3(2)(g), that decision should be affirmed because (1) the petitioner did not serve as a social worker for 10 years or more and (2) the record does not establish that more than half of her time was spent providing Group 2 care to members of a Group 2 population

“The Petitioner, Dorrette Bogle-Stephenson, appeals two decisions of the State Board of Retirement (‘the Board’). The first is an appeal of the Board’s denial of her request to be classified in Group 2 under G.L.c. 32, §3(2)(g) for her service as a Case Reviewer A/B. The second is an appeal of the Board’s denial of her request to pro-rate her time as a Social Worker for DCF as Group 2 service. …

“… Ms. Bogle-Stephenson can establish that her social worker positions qualify for Group 2 classification by proving that she held the title of social worker at [the Department of Children and Families (DCF)] for ten years or more; or that her regular and major duties as a social worker required her to have the ‘care, custody, instruction or other supervision of parolees or persons who are mentally ill or mentally defective or defective delinquents or wayward children.’ …

“Ms. Bogle-Stephenson’s service as a social worker at DCF was nine years and nine months long. Therefore, she cannot establish Group 2 eligibility for her social worker positions on the basis that she held the title of social worker for ten years or more. …

“To satisfy the second basis for qualification, Ms. Bogle-Stephenson must prove that her ‘regular and major duties’ as a social worker required her to have the ‘care, custody, instruction or other supervision of parolees or persons who are mentally ill or mentally defective or defective delinquents or wayward children.’ G.L.c. 32, §3(2)(g). …

“Even if Ms. Bogle-Stephenson’s face-to-face case management activities constituted Group 2-qualifying care, however, the record does not establish that the provision of such care occupied more than half of her working hours. She spent at least an hour per month with each of her thirty clients, and the record suggests that she frequently spent more time than that (sometimes significantly more), depending on the need. Although it is possible that Ms. Bogle-Stephenson spent more than half of her working hours engaged in Group 2 care, but the record does not suffice to establish this by a preponderance of the evidence.

“Moreover, even if Ms. Bogle-Stephenson spent more than half of her working hours engaged in Group 2 care activities, the record does not establish that more than half of her time was spent providing Group 2 care to members of a Group 2 population. …

“To meet the Group 2 classification requirements for her case reviewer position, Ms. Bogle-Stephenson must show that her ‘regular and major duties’ as a case reviewer involved providing Group 2 care to members of a Group 2 population.

“If Ms. Bogle-Stephenson provided Group 2 care in this position, it would have occurred during the foster care case review conferences, which is when she was interacting with the youths. It is not likely that conducting these group meetings, which were evaluative in nature, would constitute direct care under the decisional law. … But even if these conferences constituted direct care, it is not clear from the record that they occupied more than half of Ms. Bogle-Stephenson’s working hours.

“Moreover, there was no evidence that the children for whom Ms. Bogle-Stephenson served as a case reviewer were ‘wayward children’ or belonged to some other Group 2 population.

“For these reasons, Ms. Bogle-Stephenson has not met her burden of establishing that her case reviewer position is entitled to Group 2 classification. …

“The two decisions of the Board denying Ms. Bogle-Stephenson’s applications for Group 2 classification are affirmed.”

Bogle-Stephenson v. State Board of Retirement (Lawyers Weekly No. 27-054-26) (10 pages) (Pomarole, Administrative Magistrate) (Division of Administrative Law Appeals) Dorrette Bogle-Stephenson, pro se; Yande Lombe for the respondent (Docket Nos. CR-22-0056 and CR-22-0305) (April 17, 2026).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.