Background
Thomas Owens was hired as a New Hampshire state trooper in 2016. In 2018, the Division of State Police began investigating him for altering his timecard to fit an additional extra-duty detail shift in violation of department policy. The Division terminated Owens in 2019, citing both the timecard alteration and his conduct during the investigation. Owens appealed to the New Hampshire Personnel Appeals Board (PAB), which reversed the termination as unwarranted, finding he had exercised poor judgment but was credible. The PAB reinstated him with a twenty-day suspension without pay, a decision later affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2022. Owens did not return to the Division after reinstatement, having relocated out of state.
Following reinstatement, the parties disputed the scope of the back pay award. The PAB clarified that reinstatement included back pay less mitigation and the twenty-day suspension. The central remaining dispute was whether back pay should include overtime and extra-duty detail earnings. After a hearing, the PAB awarded Owens his “expected and anticipated overtime back pay” during the termination period, calculated by averaging his overtime earnings in 2017 and 2018. The Division appealed, arguing that RSA 273-D:3, V does not authorize overtime wages as part of a back pay award.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court reversed the PAB’s overtime award, holding that RSA 273-D:3, V limits mandatory back pay to “salary loss suffered” — meaning only an employee’s lost fixed compensation, not variable overtime earnings. The Court applied de novo review to the statutory interpretation question and concluded that “salary,” read in its general sense of “fixed compensation paid regularly,” does not encompass overtime pay, which is an additional and inherently indeterminate payment for excess work.
The Court rejected the employee’s argument that the PAB’s broader discretionary authority to make orders it “deems just” could override the statute’s express back pay formula. Permitting the PAB to bypass the “salary loss suffered” mandate in calculating back pay would impermissibly render that statutory language superfluous. The Court also dismissed the relevance of out-of-state precedents awarding overtime in disciplinary cases, noting those decisions did not construe statutes containing the same limiting language as New Hampshire’s. The case was remanded for recalculation of back pay consistent with the opinion.
Key Takeaways
- RSA 273-D:3, V caps a reinstated state employee’s mandatory back pay at “salary loss suffered,” which means fixed regular compensation only — overtime pay is excluded.
- The PAB’s general discretionary authority to craft relief it “deems just” does not override the statute’s specific back pay formula; reading it otherwise would render the formula superfluous.
- Overtime earnings are too speculative to constitute “salary loss” because they fluctuate, are not guaranteed, and may be further limited by circumstances arising from the disciplinary matter itself.
- The “salary” in RSA 273-D:3, V applies equally to hourly and salaried employees, but in either case refers to fixed regular compensation, not variable premium pay.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the outer boundary of the PAB’s remedial authority in state employee termination cases, resolving a previously open question about whether back pay awards could include variable compensation such as overtime and extra-duty detail pay. State agencies now have clearer guidance that, in mandatory reinstatement cases, back pay is confined to the employee’s base fixed compensation — potentially reducing the financial exposure agencies face when terminations are reversed on appeal.
For public employee unions and individual employees, the ruling means that troopers and other state workers who regularly work substantial overtime cannot recover those lost earnings if they are wrongfully terminated and later reinstated. The decision may also influence how parties negotiate settlements in PAB proceedings, knowing that overtime is off the table as a matter of law when reinstatement is mandatory under the statute.