Firefighting was in Dan Randall’s family. His grandfather was a fire chief, as was his dad.

Randall had no doubt it would be his career path too, but he waited until he was 35 years old to get hired to a department – competition at the time was stiff due to the national appeal of the benefits offered by the New Hampshire’s Retirement System, he said. 

“Kind of like an old guy getting into a young boy’s ball game, but I always had it in the back of my head, great, I’ll put in my 20 years and I’ll be able to retire at 55,” he said. 

His career has gone according to plan – he’s 55 years old and has worked for the Concord Fire Department for 20 years, now serving as a lieutenant. But retirement isn’t on the horizon quite yet, due to changes to pension plans for first responders that the state legislature passed in 2011. 

“It’s a challenge,” he said. “I think if we were still in the old system, I would probably be retired by now.” 

A class action lawsuit filed this week looks to retroactively compensate people like Randall, by asking the state to honor retirement benefits that were promised to a group of about 1,800 government workers when they were hired. 

In 2011, the state legislature changed the pension formula for incoming state employees and those who had been on the job for less than a decade. The changes – which legislators deemed necessary to stave off the system’s $4 billion debt – adjusted the calculation of pensions to make employees work longer before becoming eligible. Before the changes police and firefighters could retire after 20 years and their pensions were based on the three years their pay was highest.  

As a result, five plaintiffs – four of whom are active employees and one retired municipal employee – argue that the changes to state law violated their equal protection rights, are an unconstitutional taking of property rights and constitute the retroactive application of a law, all of which is contrary to the New Hampshire Constitution. 

In response to the legislative changes in 2011, a group formed called the New Hampshire Group II Retirement Coalition that advocates for retribution for employees affected. 

Restoring these benefits would cost the state between $150 and $200 million, which could be paid off over the course of several years, according to the SeifuRagassa, the president of the coalition. 

“We’re not trying to bankrupt the state retirement system,” he said. “We’re trying to find a solution that will fix the problem while honoring the promise that was made.” 

Ragassa is one of the employees affected after he took a job as he became a New Hampshire Department of Probation and Parole officer prior to the law change in 2011. 

To him, the changes broke promises made when these employees were hired. He said the lawsuit is a necessary remedy after the legislature failed to address retributions this session, he continued. 

“We’re filing this lawsuit not because we want to, it’s because we were forced to,” he said. 

Last year, a state commission created to study the impact of New Hampshire’s Retirement System benefits released a report with immediate recommendations that would have provided some relief to this group of retirees. 

The recommendations included increasing the benefit multiplier for the impacted Group II employees who began work prior to the 2011 changes. The committee also suggested lowering the requirements to be fully vested in the system from 10 years to five years, and proposed amending the base compensation calculation to include mandatory overtime pay. 

Some of these changes came before the legislature this past session in House Bill 1647, which was signed into law by Governor Chris Sununu.

However, the final bill was amended by the Senate to remove some of the committee’s recommendations, once again discounting their cause, said Ragassa. 

“It’s like putting a Band-Aid on a wound that needed actual surgery,” said Ragassa. “There is no longer incentive that used to attract people to the table. So in many regards, that bill wasn’t useful to us.” 

This is not the first legal challenge to these changes. In 2013, the Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire filed a lawsuit that was ultimately heard by the New Hampshire Supreme Court – which sided with the state. 

However, the current lawsuit is broader in scope, according to Benjamin King, a lawyer from Douglas, Leonard and Garvey, who is representing the plaintiffs. 

In the firefighter’s case, the group sued over a violation of contract law with the state constitution. The most recent case concerns other constitutional rights, like equal protection, freedom from retroactive laws and unconstitutional takings, said King. 

While the suit only applies to employees who were impacted by the 2011 changes, Ragassa argues that it will have a greater impact on recruitment and retention within the industry at-large. 

“This was done to me. You really think I’m going to go out and advocate for people to come join my team, understanding what was happening to me?” he said. “They have to fix this. They have to restore the trust.” 

Randall agreed. 

Thinking back to when he first started, jobs were scarce, loyalty was high and turnover was limited.  Today, he’s seen a handful of new hires circle through the door – especially paramedics who could land jobs in more lucrative nursing programs. 

“They’ll see the money that’s being offered other places,” he said. “That leaves staffing levels here in the city compromised.” 

The high turnover means that shifts are extended, with current staff working overtime. 

Still to Randall, working as a firefighter is a family tradition he will see through to retirement – even if it means working beyond age 55. 

“Fire service is in my blood. I still think it’s the best job in the world,” he said. “I wish that promises could have been kept, because at 55, I can see myself doing something else. In two more years, I might not be able to.”