Greene County settles pension lawsuit brought by Judge Toothman
WAYNESBURG – Greene County and Farley Toothman have settled a lawsuit the president judge filed last year in his capacity as a former county employee regarding issues involving his pension.
Toothman sued the county retirement board last year claiming the county failed to notify him he had to apply for pension benefits when he became eligible for those benefits at age 60 June 5, 2015.
He claimed he failed to collect about $10,728 in retirement benefits for the 13 months from the date he became eligible for benefits until the date he made application in July 2016.
Toothman, who was a county commissioner and county solicitor for more than 13 years before becoming judge in 2009, argued his benefits should have been calculated from the date he became eligible.
The county retirement board, however, determined Toothman’s benefits would be calculated from the date he made application, not from his date of eligibility.
Retirement board members said earlier the board decision was in keeping with provisions of Act 96, county pension law, and Toothman was being treated the same as all plan participants.
They also noted Toothman had been informed about the application requirement during an exit interview at the time he left county employment.
Toothman’s lawsuit, initiated last April, had been turned over to the county’s insurer, Travelers Insurance, as are all lawsuits filed against the county, solicitor Cheryl Cowen said.
Under the settlement agreement, Toothman will be paid $9,729.84, she said.
The settlement agreement reached March 22 includes a confidentiality clause that did not, however, prohibit the county from releasing the details, Cowan said.
Toothman, reached before the settlement details were released Friday, declined to comment because of the confidentiality agreement.
Toothman said earlier he began the court proceeding only to clarify the pension issue, believing it also might be relevant to other former county employees.
However, Cowen said, the settlement is only “particular” to Toothman and “has no impact on any other pension claims.” She also noted the county didn’t believe Toothman’s circumstances applied to any other plan participants.
Toothman also said he believed at the time of eligibility he should have been provided with information regarding what his payment would be then, as well as what it would be if he deferred receiving benefits until later.
Though monthly payments increase the longer an employee defers taking benefits, Toothman said he was not given any information on which to make a decision. Because he didn’t apply at the age of eligibility, he said, the board assumed he was deferring benefits. He had no choice in the matter.
The county had responded that the board followed provisions of the county pension law in making its determination. It also maintained all county employees are notified of the application requirement when they leave county employment and sign documents indicating they understand those conditions.
After Toothman brought the matter to the board’s attention, the board voted to begin sending former county employees notice when they reach the age of eligibility about the application requirement.