Where the petitioner, an employee of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, has appealed the decision of the State Board of Retirement to classify his position as Group 1 rather than Group 2, there is no basis for overturning that decision despite the petitioner’s argument that his position should be classified as Group 2 because it involves hazards comparable to those entailed by positions falling within Group 2.
“The petitioner, William Saffie, appeals the decision of the State Board of Retirement (‘the Board’) to classify his position as Group 1 rather than Group 2. …
“As the Board correctly remarks, Mr. Saffie’s position is not one of the positions identified by name under Group 2. …
“… Instead, the gravamen of his appeal is that his position should be classified as Group 2 because it involves hazards comparable to (or perhaps, in some cases, exceeding) those entailed by positions falling within Group 2. For the reasons set forth below, this argument is unavailing. …
“… It is true that the Appeals Court has observed that the ‘type of employment classified in Group 2 tends to be considerably more hazardous than the employment in Group 1.’ Pysz v. CRAB, 403 Mass. 514, 518 (1988). But this is a characterization of the statutory criteria — dangerousness is not, itself, a statutory criterion for inclusion in Group 2. … The Legislature could have stated that Group 2 membership will be based on job-associated hazards, but it did not.
“Mr. Saffie also opines that it...
South Korean authorities have arrested a YouTuber who allegedly made defamatory claims about actor Kim Soo-hyun, fuelling a scandal that halted the A-lister's career. Police and prosecutors allege...