Gregory Raftery, a former Massachusetts State Police trooper, challenged the State Board of Retirement’s order requiring him to forfeit his pension under a state statute mandating complete forfeiture of a public employee’s pension if the employee is convicted of a crime “involving violation of the laws applicable to his office or position,” referencing Mass. General Law Ch. 32, § 15(4). Raftery retired in 2018 after more than two decades of service but later pleaded guilty in federal court to embezzlement for falsely reporting over 700 overtime hours, collecting more than $50,000 in unearned pay, and covering the scheme with falsified citations. He was sentenced to prison, supervised release, and restitution. The Board applied § 15(4) to find neither Raftery nor his beneficiaries were entitled to his pension benefits, actuarily valued at just over one million dollars. The Board ordered that Raftery receive only a return of his contributions to the account, reduced by the amount of benefits he had received prior to the suspension and any tax or insurance payments made on his behalf since his retirement date. The district court upheld the decision, and Raftery sought review in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, arguing that mandatory forfeiture was an “excessive fine” and “cruel or unusual punishment” under the U.S. Constitution and Article 26 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
The Court, in an opinion by Justice Kafker, affirmed. It held that mandatory pension forfeiture is a “fine” under Public Safety Labor News. .9 Article 26, but not an excessive one. Applying the proportionality framework developed in precedent cases, the Court weighed the forfeiture against the gravity of Raftery’s offense. It emphasized the seriousness and prolonged nature of his embezzlement scheme, his breach of public trust as a senior officer, the statutory maximum penalty of ten years’ imprisonment and a $250,000 fine, and the broader harm to the integrity of law enforcement. Although the direct financial loss to the State was only about $51,000, the Court concluded the forfeiture of his entire pension benefit was not “grossly disproportionate” in light of the gravity of the misconduct and the deterrent purpose of § 15(4).
On the “cruel or unusual punishment” claim, the Court explained that Article 26 has historically applied to incarceration or corporal penalties, not monetary sanctions. Even assuming it applied, the forfeiture did not “shock the conscience” or rise to the level of disproportionality that offends human dignity.
Accordingly, the Court upheld the Board’s order and affirmed judgment for the State.
Raftery v. State Bd. of Retirement, SJC-13646, 2025 WL 2248513 (Mass. Aug. 7, 2025)