Ex-employees of St. Clare’s achieve court victory for their pensions

Schenectady Court Rules in Favor of Former St. Clare University Employees

SCHENECTADY, N.Y. – A group of former employees from St. Clare University achieved a significant legal win regarding their pensions on Friday.

Following a lengthy trial, a jury determined that the pension funds had been poorly managed, resulting in a ruling for over $54 million in damages. The New York State Attorney General’s Office and the AARP Foundation had initiated the lawsuit.

The attorney general’s office indicated that the jury held the former chaplain and St. Clare Hospital management accountable for inadequately overseeing the pension plan, which affected 1,124 employees.

Attorney General Letitia James stated that several former officials, including bishops Howard Hubbard and Edward Scharfenberger, along with then-president Joseph Poffitt and former hospital president Robert Perry, failed in their fiduciary responsibilities to both the hospital and its pensioners.

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, however, claimed it was not accountable for the situation.

The jury’s decision resulted in an award of $54.2 million for pensioners who experienced lost payments.

James remarked, “This judgment is a major victory for all of St. Clare’s staff who have tirelessly cared for their patients but have been unfairly denied a pension and the opportunity to retire with dignity.”

Congressman Angelo Santabarbara also commented on the ruling, stating, “The decision in the St. Clare pension case affirms long-awaited justice for retirees who did everything right. These workers earned the retirement security they were promised through decades of dedicated service to caring for our communities. Today’s decision confirms the importance of those promises.”

During the defense’s closing arguments, they attempted to shift blame to the state Department of Health and the Berger Commission for pressuring hospitals to increase efficiency. St. Clare Hospital ultimately closed in 2008.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers contended that the board should have contributed more to the pension fund and been more forthcoming about the fund’s troubling state.