Appeal of N.H. Div. of State Police

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well
as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers
are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, One
Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any editorial errors in
order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. Errors
may be reported by email at the following address: reporter@courts.state.nh.us.
Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 a.m. on the morning of their
release. The direct address of the court’s home page is:
https://www.courts.nh.gov/our-courts/supreme-court.

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

___________________________

Personnel Appeals Board
Case No. 2025-0344
Citation: Appeal of N.H. Div. of State Police, 2026 N.H. 21

APPEAL OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DIVISION OF STATE POLICE
(New Hampshire Personnel Appeals Board)

Argued: March 10, 2026
Opinion Issued: May 15, 2026

John M. Formella, attorney general, and Anthony J. Galdieri, solicitor
general (Meaghan A. Jepsen, attorney, on the brief and orally), for the New
Hampshire Division of State Police.

Krupski & Beaudoin, PLLC, of Concord (Marc G. Beaudoin on the brief
and orally), for the respondent, Thomas Owens.

DONOVAN, J.

¶1 The New Hampshire Department of Safety, Division of State Police
(Division) appeals an order of the Personnel Appeals Board (PAB) awarding the
respondent, Thomas Owens (employee), “his expected and anticipated overtime
back pay” following the PAB’s earlier reversal of the employee’s termination.

2
See RSA 273-D:3, V (Supp. 2025); RSA 21-I:58, I (2020) (repealed 2024).1 On
appeal, the Division argues that overtime wages cannot be awarded as “salary
loss suffered” under RSA 273-D:3, V. We agree and, accordingly, reverse and
remand.
I. Facts

¶2 The PAB found, or the record supports, the following facts. In 2016,
the Division hired the employee as a state trooper. In 2018, the Division began
investigating him for adjusting his timecard to accommodate an additional
extra-duty detail shift in violation of the Division’s policies. The Division
terminated the employee in 2019, citing both the timecard alteration and the
employee’s conduct during the investigation.

¶3 The employee appealed to the PAB, which reversed his termination
as “unwarranted by the alleged conduct and unjust in light of the facts in
evidence.” See N.H. Admin. R., Per-A 207.12(b)(3), (4). The PAB found that
although the employee had violated the Division’s rules, he was “credible” and
merely displayed “poor judgment,” “inattention to detail,” and “poor time
management.” It therefore reinstated his employment and imposed a twenty-
day suspension without pay. After the Division appealed to this court, we
affirmed the PAB’s reinstatement order. Appeal of N.H. Div. of State Police, 175
N.H. 1, 4, 5-6 (2022).

¶4 The parties subsequently disagreed as to whether the PAB’s
reinstatement order entitled the employee to receive back pay and benefits.2
After the employee moved for clarification before the PAB, the PAB issued an
order explaining that it intended “that the reinstatement of the [employee]
include back pay less any mitigation and less the 20-day suspension without
pay.” The PAB therefore directed the Division to provide back pay and benefits.

¶5 The parties then disputed, among other things, whether the
calculation of the employee’s back pay should include pay for extra-duty detail
and other overtime work. The Division moved for a hearing on back pay
compensation before the PAB. Following a hearing, the PAB awarded the
employee “his expected and anticipated overtime back pay during his period of
termination.” The PAB estimated this figure using the average of the
employee’s overtime earnings in 2017 and 2018. The Division moved for a
rehearing, which the PAB denied. This appeal followed.

1 In 2024 — after the PAB’s initial reinstatement of the employee, but before its subsequent order
awarding him overtime pay — the legislature repealed RSA 21-I:58 and reenacted the language at
issue in this case as RSA 273-D:3, V. This language remains substantively unchanged.
Therefore, this opinion refers to the statute’s current version. See N.H. Municipal Workers’ Comp.
Fund v. Smith, 124 N.H. 526, 529 (1984).

2 The employee moved out of state following his initial dismissal and did not rejoin the Division
after his reinstatement.

3
II. Analysis

¶6 On appeal, the Division argues that the PAB erred by determining
that under RSA 273-D:3, V, the employee could receive overtime wages as part
of his back pay award. RSA 541:13 (2021) governs our review of the PAB’s
decision. See RSA 273-D:3, VI (Supp. 2025); Appeal of N.H. Div. of State
Police, 175 N.H. 229, 234 (2022). “The Division, as the appealing party, has
the burden to show that the PAB’s decision ‘is clearly unreasonable or
unlawful.’” Appeal of N.H. Div. of State Police, 175 N.H. at 234 (quoting RSA
541:13). “The PAB’s findings of fact are deemed prima facie lawful and
reasonable.” Id. “We will not vacate or set aside the PAB’s decision except for
errors of law, unless we are satisfied, by a clear preponderance of the evidence,
that its order is unjust or unreasonable.” Id. “However, we review the PAB’s
interpretations of statutes and administrative rules de novo.” Id.

¶7 “When interpreting both statutes and administrative rules, we
ascribe the plain and ordinary meanings to the words used.” Id. In addition,
“we give effect to all words in a statute and presume that the legislature did not
enact superfluous or redundant words.” Appeal of Vasquez, 175 N.H. 450, 453
(2022). “We construe all parts of a statute together to effectuate its overall
purpose and avoid an absurd or unjust result.” Appeal of Port City Air Leasing,
Inc., 177 N.H. 149, 152 (2024), 2024 N.H. 71, ¶6. “Moreover, we do not
consider words and phrases in isolation, but rather within the context of the
statute as a whole.” Id.

¶8 We first consider whether RSA 273-D:3, V confines the PAB’s
authority to calculate a back pay award. RSA 273-D:3, V provides, in relevant
part:

If the [PAB] finds that the action complained of was taken by the
appointing authority . . . in violation of a statute or of rules adopted
by the director, the employee shall be reinstated to the employee ’s
former position or a position of like seniority, status, and pay. The
employee shall be reinstated without loss of pay, provided that the
sum shall be equal to the salary loss suffered during the period of
denied compensation less any amount of compensation earned or
benefits received from any other source during the period. . . . In all
cases, the [PAB] may reinstate an employee or otherwise change or
modify any order of the appointing authority, or make such order as
it may deem just.

(Emphasis added.)

¶9 We have previously construed nearly identical language appearing in
this provision’s predecessor statute, RSA 21-I:58, I. See Appeal of N.H. Div. of
State Police, 171 N.H. 262, 267 (2018) (interpreting RSA 21-I:58, I (2012)). In

4
doing so, we explained: “The statute establishes two categories of relief a
permanent employee may receive from the PAB: one mandatory and one
discretionary.” Id. The PAB must reinstate an employee “if the action
complained of was taken by the appointing authority for an impermissible
purpose, or violated a statute or applicable administrative rule.” Id. In all
other cases, the PAB retains discretion “to determine whether to grant relief
and how to craft that relief.” Id.; see also Barry v. N.H. Dep’t of Health and
Human Servs., 170 N.H. 364, 368 (2017) (discussing the PAB’s reinstatement
authority under RSA chapter 21-I (2012) and administrative rules).

¶10 The employee contends that the PAB reinstated him under its
mandatory authority but retained its discretionary authority to craft a back pay
award that it deemed “just.” See RSA 273-D:3, V. Meanwhile, the Division
does not appear to take a position on appeal regarding whether the employee’s
reinstatement was mandatory or discretionary. We therefore assume, without
deciding, that his reinstatement was mandatory.

¶11 The plain text of RSA 273-D:3, V provides that when mandatory, an
employee’s reinstatement must occur “without loss of pay, provided that the
sum shall be equal to the salary loss suffered.” (Emphases added.) The use of
“provided that” and “shall” indicate the legislature’s intent to compel the PAB to
follow this instruction. Because we construe statutory phrases “within the
context of the statute as a whole,” Appeal of Port City Air Leasing, Inc., 177
N.H. at 152, 2024 N.H. 71, ¶6, we must interpret the subsequent language in
RSA 273-D:3, V vesting the PAB with discretion to “make such order as it may
deem just” in light of this express instruction. Contrary to the employee’s
argument, permitting the PAB to ignore this mandate when calculating an
employee’s lost pay award would impermissibly render this instruction
“superfluous or redundant.” Appeal of Vasquez, 175 N.H. at 453.

¶12 We therefore turn to the statute’s instruction vis-à-vis
“reinstate[ment] without loss of pay”: “provided that the sum shall be equal to
the salary loss suffered during the period of denied compensation less any
amount of compensation earned or benefits received from any other source
during the period.” RSA 273-D:3, V (emphasis added). This provision’s
operative phrase is “salary loss suffered.” Id. Accordingly, we consider the
plain meaning of “salary,” which RSA chapter 273-D (Supp. 2025) does not
define.

¶13 “When a term is not defined in the statute, we look to its common
usage, using the dictionary for guidance.” Appeal of Port City Air Leasing, Inc.,
177 N.H. at 153, 2024 N.H. 71, ¶10. The parties proffer rivaling dictionary
definitions. The Division submits that “salary” means “fixed compensation
paid regularly (as by the year, quarter, month, or week) for services.” Merriam-
Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, https://unabridged.merriam-
webster.com/unabridged/salary (last visited May 13, 2026). Meanwhile, the

5
employee points to the meaning of “salary” in Black’s Law Dictionary. See
Black’s Law Dictionary 1607 (12th ed. 2024) (defining “salary” as “[a]n agreed
compensation for services — esp. professional or semiprofessional services —
usu. paid at regular intervals on a yearly basis, as distinguished from an
hourly basis,” and noting that “[s]alaried positions are usu. exempt from the
requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (on overtime and the like)”).
Based on the definition in Black’s, the employee posits that the Division’s focus
on the term “salary” is misplaced, given that troopers are paid on an hourly
basis.

¶14 The employee suggests that the statute’s use of “salary” is
ambiguous because the Division paid him an hourly wage, not an annual
salary. This argument does not persuade us. The PAB regularly hears
personnel appeals pertaining to both hourly and salaried employees across a
swath of state agencies. See, e.g., Appeal of Cass, 177 N.H. ___, ___ (2025),
2025 N.H. 51, ¶1 (reviewing PAB’s affirmance of corrections officer’s
termination); Clark v. N.H. Dep’t of Emp’t Sec., 171 N.H. 639, 642-43 (2019)
(examining PAB’s review of the demotion of an hourly employee at
unemployment benefits unit); Barry, 170 N.H. at 366, 368 (discussing PAB’s
reinstatement of counselor at juvenile detention facility); see also RSA 273-D:2,
I (describing PAB’s jurisdiction). RSA 273-D:3, V governs the PAB’s
reinstatement of both hourly and salaried workers. Accordingly, we conclude
that the legislature used “salary” in the word’s general sense — “fixed
compensation paid regularly” — rather than in the narrower sense of an
agreed-upon yearly compensation. Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary,
supra.

¶15 The employee’s fixed compensation is his “regular” hourly pay for a
standard work schedule, as agreed upon in the troopers’ collective bargaining
agreement. By contrast, “overtime” is “an additional payment” for excess work.
Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, https://unabridged.merriam-
webster.com/unabridged/overtime (last visited May 13, 2026). Unlike the fixed
compensation for a position, overtime earnings fluctuate and are
indeterminate. See White v. City of Boston, 783 N.E.2d 467, 468 (Mass. App.
Ct. 2003) (explaining that “overtime pay and police detail pay were speculative
because the need for extra services was likely to be uncertain”). This premise
is true even where, as here, the employee consistently worked overtime prior to
his termination. Indeed, an employee’s disciplinary case may itself present an
intervening circumstance that renders overtime less likely. This case provides
an illustration: having found that the employee displayed “poor judgment” in
managing his extra-duty detail shifts, Appeal of N.H. Div. of State Police, 175
N.H. at 3, the PAB recommended in its reinstatement order “that [the Division]
not offer him any details for 60 days.” See also White, 783 N.E.2d at 469
(declining to award overtime to a reinstated police officer, and noting that his
“eligibility for extra-duty work was much limited because he could not carry a
firearm pending completion of retraining at the police academy”).

6
[¶16] By its express terms, the statute’s specification that, when
reinstatement is mandatory, it should occur “without loss of pay, provided that
the sum shall be equal to the salary loss suffered” seeks to preclude recovery of
uncertain amounts beyond “the salary loss suffered.” RSA 273-D:3, V
(emphases added). As explained above, the plain meaning of “salary loss
suffered,” id., is an employee’s lost fixed compensation. Because the statute is
clear, the employee’s argument that we should defer to the PAB’s application of
this provision under the doctrine of administrative gloss is unavailing. See
Appeal of N.H. Dep’t of Envtl. Servs., 176 N.H. 379, 395 (2023). In addition,
the out-of-state cases on which the employee relies as support for an award of
overtime pay in disciplinary appeals are inapposite. None of those cases
appears to apply statutes that, like ours, constrain the applicable agency or
court’s authority to calculate a back pay award. Accordingly, we conclude that
RSA 273-D:3, V barred the PAB from awarding the employee overtime back
pay.

III. Conclusion

¶17 In sum, we conclude that under the instruction pertaining to
reinstatement “without loss of pay” in RSA 273-D:3, V, the PAB lacks authority
to award overtime back pay to a reinstated employee. We therefore reverse and
remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

COUNTWAY and GOULD, JJ., concurred.