Preview:

Edgar A . Bowen , et al. v. City of A nnapolis No. 34, September Term, 2007 STATUTORY INTERPRETATION : If statutory langua ge is clear and u nambigu ous, this Court looks to the plain language of the statute. Under the plain language of Section 3.36.150A of the Co de of the C ity of Annap olis, retired emp loyees are entitled to receiv e increases in th eir pension b enefits in tandem with any increase in pay scale given to active employees of the same rank and years of service. As a result of the adoption of the Yarger and Hendricks Study, the City gra nted active e mployees inc reases in their s alaries, both on a City-wide basis as well as on an individual basis. Therefore, Petitioners are entitled to the same percentage of increase in their pension benefits as any increase given to active employees of the same rank and years of service as the retired employee. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT - REQUIREMENTS : In actions for declaratory relief and judgmen t, where the controversy is appropriate for resolution by declaratory judgment, the Circuit Court must enter a written order declaring the rights of the parties. Ancillary relief may be included within the written order. Failure to enter such a judgm ent will result in remand of the case for the entry of an appropriate declaration; however, the Court, in its discretio n, may fir st review the me rits of the contro versy.

In the Circu it Court for A nne Aru ndel Cou nty No. C-04-95442 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 34 September Term, 2007

EDG AR A . BOW EN, JR ., et al. v. CITY O F ANN APOL IS

Bell, C.J. Raker Harrell Battaglia Greene Wilner, A lan M. (R etired, Spec ially Assigned) Cathell, D ale R. (Retire d, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Greene, J.

Filed: December 14, 2007

This is principally a case of statutory interpretation involving our construction of Section 3.36.150A1 of the Code of the City of Annapolis ("C ity Code"). 1 Fifty-nine retired police officers and firefighters for the City of Annapolis ("Petitioners") challenge the C ity's interpretation of Section 3.36.150A1 which would deny them increased pension benefits in tandem with raises given to their active du ty counterparts. Each Petitioner had filed a separate claim with the City's Director of Human Resources requesting a pension increase after the City modified the pay scale for active duty city employees.2 When the Director

1

Section 3.3 6.150A 1 reads in re levant part: Each retired member's pension shall be increased by the same percentage as any increase in the pay scale for members of the same rank and years of service who are on active d uty . If no increase in the pay scale for members of the same rank and years of service who are on active duty is provided in the annual budget, then the m emb er's pension shall be increased, effective July 1st of that year, by such cost of living adjustm ent as the City Council, in its disc retion, shall provide by resolution. If the member had elected to be covered under the normal service retirement benefit formula described in Section 3.36.040(A)(2), the annual adjustment to the member's retirement benefit shall not exceed four percent of the amount of the annuity the member was receiving immedia tely before the d ate the adjus tment is made.

(Emphasis add ed). Prior to filing individual claims with the Director of Human Resources, on October 1, 2002, Petitioners filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County requesting a judgment for retroactive and prospective increases in their pensio n benefits in tandem with raises g iven to their active duty counterparts. Their request was made through an action for declaratory and injunctive relief. The City moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that Pe tition ers h ad fa iled t o exhaust the ir administrative r eme dies. Spe cific ally, the City contended that Petitioners were required, under S ection 3.36 .170A, to f ile their (contin ued...)
2

denied their individu al claims on the same b asis, Petitioners and other retired employees collectively appealed to the C ity's Civil Service Board.3 Preliminarily, the Board decided it would not consider sixty-one of the sixty-two claims, finding the retired employees' collective appeal improper under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23.4 The Board then denied the only claim pending before it - that of Edgar A. Bowe n, Jr. ("Bowen") - on its merits. Thereafter, dissatisfied with the decisions of the Director of Human Resources and the Civil Service Board, Bowen and fifty-eight other retired employees filed a complaint for

(...continued) pension-related grievances with the City's Director of Human Resources and, if thereafter aggrieved by her decision , appeal that d ecision to the City's Civil Service B oard. The Circuit Court agreed w ith the City and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The Circuit Court determined that the Director of Human Resources and the Civil Service Board, pursuant to Section 3.36.170A as well as the overa ll statutory scheme of the City Code, were authorized to resolv e, in the f irst instan ce, disp utes ov er retired emplo yees' pen sion be nefits. While the number of Petitioners before us in this appeal is fifty-nine, there were originally sixty-two retired police officers and fire fighters in the collective appeal to the City's Civil Service Board. Three of the individuals who a ppealed to the Civil Serv ice Board did not join in the action fo r declaratory an d injunctive relief filed in th e Circuit C ourt.
4 3

2

Rule 23, e ntitled "Class Actions," re ads in releva nt part: (a) Prerequisites to a Class Action. One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all memb ers is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

-2-

declaratory and injunctive relief and judgment in the Cir cuit C ourt for A nne Aru ndel County. Specific ally, Petitioners requested that the Circuit Court make the following declaration, pursuant to Maryland Code (1973, 2006 Repl. Vol.),

Download Bowen v. City of Annapolis.pdf

Maryland Law