Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire & a. v. State of New Hampshire & a.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2016-0146, Professional Fire Fighters of New
Hampshire & a. v. State of New Hampshire & a., the court on
October 13, 2016, issued the following order:

Having considered the briefs and record submitted on appeal, we conclude
that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm.

The petitioners, several individuals with interests in the New Hampshire
Retirement System (NHRS), and intervenors, several labor organizations that
represent members of NHRS, appeal an order of the Superior Court (Abramson,
J.) granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of the respondents, the State of
New Hampshire, NHRS, and its executive director.

They contend that the trial court erred by: (1) applying “the
‘unmistakability’ analysis as the exclusive approach for determining the
contractual intent element of Contract Clause claims”; (2) not adopting “an
alternative, parallel mechanism for determining whether there is an expression of
contractual intent, based on the NHRS’s long-standing characterization as a
deferred compensation system under Part I, Article 36 of the New Hampshire
Constitution”; (3) not finding that “[c]ontractual rights and obligations between
the State and NHRS members arise out of the NHRS’s characterization as a
deferred compensation system”; (4) retroactively applying the “new state of the
law” embodied in Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire v. State, 167 N.H.
188 (2014) (Fire Fighters I), which “was not in effect in 2011 when the challenged
amendments to RSA 100-A arose”; and (5) in the alternative, not finding,
pursuant to the “unmistakability analysis,” that “the legislature, when it adopted
RSA 100-A, intended to create the NHRS as a deferred compensation system that
also created enforceable contractual obligations between the State and NHRS
members.”

A motion seeking judgment based solely on the pleadings is in the nature
of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. LaChance v. U.S. Smokeless
Tobacco Co., 156 N.H. 88, 93 (2007). In reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, we assume the truth of the
facts alleged by the plaintiffs and construe all reasonable inferences in the light
most favorable to them. Plaisted v. LaBrie, 165 N.H. 194, 195 (2013). We then
engage in a threshold inquiry that tests the facts in the petition against the
applicable law, and if the allegations do not constitute a basis for legal relief, we
will conclude that granting the motion to dismiss was proper. Id.
 In this case, the trial court found that “[t]o the extent petitioners maintain
that ‘vested status’ itself under RSA chapter 100[-A] creates a contractual
commitment,” American Federation of Teachers – New Hampshire v. State, 167
N.H. 294, 303-04 (2015) (AFT), “forecloses this contention.” It further found that
AFT and Fire Fighters I implicitly concluded that Part I, Article 36 of the New
Hampshire Constitution “and those cases interpreting its applicability to the
NHRS[ ] are inapposite to the challenged” amendments to RSA chapter 100-A
(2013 & Supp. 2015). The trial court “conclude[d] that the petitioners’ Contract
Clause claims fail because none of the challenged sections exhibit an
unmistakable intent by the legislature to contractually bind itself against
prospectively changing the terms contained therein.” See Fire Fighters I, 167
N.H. at 196.

As the appealing parties, the petitioners and intervenors have the burden
of demonstrating reversible error. Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014).
Based upon our review of the trial court’s well-reasoned order, the petitioners’
and intervenors’ challenges to it, the relevant law, and the record submitted on
appeal, we conclude that the petitioners and intervenors have not demonstrated
reversible error. See id.

Affirmed.

Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2