Extensive contact with prison inmates did not satisfy the requirement in Retirement Code � 5102 that a "correctional officer" be someone with a principal duty being the care, custody and control of inmates. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the decision of the State Employees' Retirement Board.
November 09, 2009 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
Parris v. State Employees’ Retirement Board, PICS Case No. 09-1841 (Pa. Commw. Nov. 2, 2009) Kelley, S.J. (13 pages).
Extensive contact with prison inmates did not satisfy the requirement in Retirement Code § 5102 that a “correctional officer” be someone with a principal duty being the care, custody and control of inmates. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the decision of the State Employees’ Retirement Board.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The National Law Journal honors attorneys & judges who've made a remarkable difference in the legal profession in the D.C. area.
New Jersey Law Journal honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in New Jersey with their dedication to the profession.
This event shines a spotlight on the individuals, teams, projects and organizations that are changing the financial industry.
With bold growth in recent years, Fox Rothschild brings together 1,000 attorneys coast to coast. We offer the reach and resources of a natio...
About Us:Monjur.com is a leading provider of contracts-as-a-service for managed service providers, offering tailored solutions to streamline...
Dynamic Boutique law firm with offices in NYC, Westchester County and Dutchess County, is seeking a mid level litigation associate to work ...
