New Haven Pension Lawsuit Highlights Oversight in Union Settlement
A New Haven Superior Court judge has allowed a lawsuit from the city's Board of Alders to proceed concerning a nearly $400,000 pension annuity awarded to retired firefighter and former battalion chief Frank Ricci. The case challenges the legality of the pension settlement, which was part of an agreement following Ricci's role as the lead plaintiff in a landmark U.S. Supreme Court civil rights case. The Board disputes the pension deal, alleging it was made without the legally mandated approval and bypassed procurement rules by not being put out to bid and exceeding $100,000. The case also names the City of New Haven and its mayor as defendants.
Frank Ricci retired in 2020 after 22 years with the New Haven Fire Department and qualified for an enhanced pension through a settlement tied to the 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision Ricci v. DeStefano. This settlement involved reinstating promotion exam results and compensation after findings that city officials unlawfully discarded the original results due to racial disparities. The pension agreement granted Ricci an annuity from a MetLife contract to supplement his retirement benefit, including additional years of service credit purchased and allotted from the settlement.
The Board of Alders alleges the pension contract violates the city charter, which requires legislative approval for contracts over $100,000 and mandates competitive bidding. The Riccis argued the Board lacked legal standing to sue as they claimed it was not a separate legal entity from the city government. However, the judge ruled the Board is a distinct body politic capable of bringing suit to protect taxpayer interests.
This dispute highlights governance and compliance issues surrounding pension settlements negotiated outside typical public approval channels. It underscores tensions between union agreements and municipal legislative oversight, raising concerns on contract approvals, taxpayer accountability, and the legal boundaries of pension enhancements linked to civil rights settlements. The case proceeding to trial could set precedent on how municipal pension deals connected to legacy legal actions are administered and scrutinized.
New Haven city officials express hope for resolution through negotiation but are prepared for trial if necessary. The outcome will likely have implications for managing future pension adjustments negotiated through settlements with public employee unions and the involvement of legislative bodies in validating such arrangements. This case will be closely watched by municipal governance experts, public pension administrators, and legal professionals specializing in public sector labor relations and compliance.