The Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire (PFFNH) and several public safety groups have filed a class-action lawsuit in Merrimack County Superior Court.
The lawsuit, filed on October 31, challenges the 2011 revisions made to the New Hampshire Retirement System.
These changes raised the required years of service for Group II employees, including police and corrections officers, from 20 to 25. The revisions also impacted employees with less than 10 years of service as of 2012, significantly altering retirement benefits.
The 2011 reforms were introduced in response to concerns about the retirement system’s funding, which stood at 57% at the time.
Though the system’s financial health has since improved, affected employees argue that the changes forced many to delay retirement and reduced their pensions.
Coalition members claim the revisions constitute a retroactive law that violates the New Hampshire Constitution, which protects benefits promised at hiring.
PFFNH President Brian Ryll emphasized the coalition’s determination to fight for justice: “We have been fighting to get these pension benefits back since then because our members should be able to retire with peace and dignity after years of service and sacrifice to their communities.”
IAFF 3rd District Vice President Jay Colbert condemned the 2011 reforms, calling them “the most egregious overreaction to defined benefit public pensions experienced by any fire fighters across New England.”
The state has made efforts to restore some benefits, such as increasing the pension multiplier and allocating $26 million to Tier II employees.
However, the coalition maintains these actions fall short of fully addressing the harm caused by the reforms.
They argue that legal action became the only viable option after all other attempts to resolve the issue proved unsuccessful.
The Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire, supported by police and corrections officers, has filed a lawsuit challenging changes to the state pension system enacted in 2011.
These changes raised service requirements and reduced retirement benefits for certain employees.
The coalition contends the revisions violate constitutional protections and has turned to the courts after other avenues failed.
Despite incremental efforts by the state to restore benefits, public safety groups argue these measures are insufficient to address the long-term impacts of the reforms.
