Sign the Petition to Support Paraprofessionals
UFT and AFT leadership must act now to protect 183 disabled paraprofessional retirees whose pension benefits have been slashed in half — for an error TRS itself admits making.
Fix Retiree Benefits strongly supports our embattled sister and brother retirees whose pensions are being halved by TRS. It’s outrageous and unacceptable that they even be asked to pay for what TRS admits is its own error. Along with Fix Para Pay and the NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees, we’ve written Randi Weingarten and Michael Mulgrew demanding they take immediate action to remedy this situation.
Please sign our petition to support these Paraprofessionals.
Our letter is below, and we will keep you apprised of further actions.
August 3, 2026
Dear Presidents Mulgrew and Weingarten:
We are writing regarding the recent decision by the New York City Teachers’ Retirement System (TRS) to reduce the accident disability retirement benefits of retired NYC Paraprofessionals and seek repayment of alleged overpayments dating to 2002.
The notices sent to Paraprofessional retirees state that TRS made an error by applying a two-thirds Final Average Salary (2/3 FAS) calculation instead of a one-third Final Average Salary (1/3 FAS) calculation. TRS asserts that because these retirees’ positions were eligible for Workers’ Compensation coverage, they should have received the lower benefit formula under Retirement and Social Security Law §605.
This explanation raises serious legal and administrative questions that must be answered before any reduction or recoupment is imposed.
First, RSSL §605 does not simply state that any employee whose position is covered by Workers’ Compensation receives one-third of Final Average Salary. The statute refers to members who are “not eligible for benefits under the Workers’ Compensation law.” Those words matter.
Eligibility for Workers’ Compensation benefits is not necessarily identical to actually collecting Workers’ Compensation benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Law provisions cited by TRS must be carefully examined, including whether TRS has improperly expanded the statute beyond its language. The “Justification” in the 2002 bill reads:
“JUSTIFICATION: At present, Tier IV basically pays an accident disability allowance of one-third of final average salary in addition to any benefits payable under Workers’ Compensation. Thus, for most public employees hurt on the job, the Tier IV benefit and Workers’ Compensation provide about two thirds of final average salary. However, since New York City teachers are not covered by the Workers’ Compensation Law, they must live at one—third of final average salary, often bringing them below the poverty level.
This bill changes accident disability payments to teachers injured in the performance of duty to two—thirds of final average salary, with no additional benefits to be paid by Workers’ Compensation. Enactment of this legislation will correct a serious inequity in the present system of compensating teachers hurt in the line of duty.”
If Teachers on line of duty disability would have been below the poverty level on the benefit at that time, where would that leave Paraprofessionals? Thus, it is conceivable the UFT did not intend to give Paras 1/3. There should have been language providing for a 100% Workers’ Compensation offset to the 2/3 benefit so you would not have been “double-dipping.” If you are not receiving Workers’ Compensation, the full 2/3 would come from TRS.
Second, TRS’s own notice acknowledges that this was not a retiree error. TRS admits:
“TRS has identified an error.”
“TRS has been overpaying your benefits.”
“We sincerely apologize for our error.”
These retirees relied on the retirement allowance calculated and awarded by the retirement system responsible for administering their pensions. Many have relied on these payments for more than a decade. Some received retirement consultations from the UFT’s Tom Brown and Tom Murphy.
Third, TRS must explain why this interpretation is being applied now. The Workers’ Compensation Law provisions at issue are not new. If TRS changed its interpretation of RSSL §605 after decades of paying these benefits under a different formula, the public and affected retirees deserve to know:
When did TRS first determine that Paraprofessionals were subject to the one-third formula?
What legal opinion, Board action, audit, directive, or court decision triggered this change?
Why were retirees not notified earlier?
How many retirees are affected?
What authority permits TRS to retroactively recover alleged overpayments extending back more than 15 years? We find no law in place that allows the Board to claw back these monies.
As President of the United Federation of Teachers and President of the American Federation of Teachers, you have a responsibility to advocate for these members. You both claim retirees are in the union, but we have seen no union statement or action. We understand the UFT became aware of this issue before June. To date, there has been no public statement explaining what action, if any, the UFT intends to take to protect these retirees. In fact, Paraprofessionals told us that when they called the UFT, they were told there was nothing the UFT could do.
This silence is especially disturbing given the UFT’s recent advocacy before the New York City Council regarding the Para Respect Check legislation. Public support for Paraprofessionals must include protecting Paraprofessionals after decades of service; not only supporting them while they are active employees, but standing with them in retirement when their earned benefits are threatened.
Therefore, we request the following immediate actions:
TRS must immediately suspend all benefit reductions and collection efforts until a full legal review is completed.
TRS must provide affected retirees with the legal basis for its interpretation of RSSL §605.
TRS must provide copies of any legal opinions, memoranda, Board resolutions, or directives supporting this action.
The TRS Trustee Board must hold a public discussion regarding this matter. It is shocking that in our attempts to contact the Board, we were advised there is no ability to do so. That must change. Telling Paraprofessionals to write a letter and mail it is insulting when this needs resolution now. Paraprofessionals are not being heard and mail only delays that.
The UFT must publicly state its position and explain what steps it is taking to protect affected Paraprofessional retirees.
The TRS Trustee Board must pass a resolution to not claw back the alleged pension overpayment.
The UFT must seek an amendment for RSSL §605 or a clarifying TRS Rule that grandfathers Paraprofessionals to the original interpretation.
We do not believe the UFT’s intent was to lift Teacher pensions above the poverty level while leaving Paraprofessional pensions far below it. We hope this is a TRS misinterpretation, and a simple amendment can resolve it to clarify the language. Because TRS has already reduced pensions, a timely response is of the essence.
Sincerely,
Arthur Goldstein