AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Employment & Labor Law for Public Safety Agencies
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Retirement Rights and Benefits
The California Supreme Court upheld lower court rulings that the elimination of the opportunity to buy additional retirement service (ARS) credit set forth in the California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA), Cal. Gov. Code 7222 et seq., did not violate the California Constitution. The opportunity to buy ARS credit was not a right protected by the contract clause of the Constitution, and in the absence of constitutional protection, the opportunity to purchase ARS credit was not a vested right and could be altered or eliminated at any time at the legislature’s discretion of the legislature. PEPRA effectively repealed the law giving public employees the opportunity to purchase ARS credit. Cal. Fire Local 2881 v. California Public Employees’ Retirement System, #S239958, 6 Cal. 5th 965, 435 P.3d 433, 244 Cal. Rptr. 3d 149.
The Texas Supreme Court held that the Dallas Police and Fire Pension System did not violate Tex. Const. art. XVI, 66 by amending its pension plan to reduce the interest rate paid on Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP) accounts. The plaintiff plan participants had elected DROP before the amendment in this case and argued that the change in interest rate reduced or impaired their service retirement benefits granted or accrued in violation of section 66. The pension plan amendments did not violate section 66 because the DROP account interest rate change was only prospective and will not impact funds deposited before the amendments became effective. Eddington v. Dallas Police & Fire Pension System, #17-0058, 2019 Tex. Lexis 243, 60 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 560.
Two Massachusetts police officers were entitled to retirement allowances under Mass. Gen. Laws Ch, 32, 15(4) despite their respective criminal convictions. One claimant, a town police sergeant, was on administrative leave when he was charged with crimes related to the discharge of his personal firearm. The second claimant, a state police sergeant, was charged with the federal crime of using the Internet to entice a minor to engage in unlawful sexual activity. The two boards in these cases each ruled that the officers’ convictions violated the fundamental tenets of their positions as law enforcement officials and denied them a retirement allowance. The highest court in Massachusetts reversed, holding that section 15(4) did not require the forfeiture of the officers’ pension allowances because their off-duty crimes were not factually connected to their positions as police officers, nor did the laws under which they were convicted expressly apply to public officials or employees. Essex Regional Retirement Board v. Swallow, #SJC-12458, 481 Mass. 241, 2019 Mass. Lexis 9, 2019 WL 254801.
In a prior decision, an intermediate California appeals court decided a case that involved the legitimacy of certain retirement benefits regularly paid by the Oakland Police and Fire Retirement Board to members and beneficiaries of the Oakland Police and Fire Retirement System (PFRS). The Retired Oakland Police Officers Association and individual PFRS pensioners then sought attorney fees under California’s private attorney general statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 and the federal Civil Rights Attorneys’ Fees Award Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. 1988. The trial court ruled that such fees were not warranted under either law. The court of appeals found, however, that an award of attorneys’ fees under section 1021.5 was proper. The plaintiff Association was a prevailing party and several facts, including the relative poverty of the Association and its members, were all valid considerations in a section 1021.5 fee analysis and tipped the scales decisively in favor of a fee award, especially when considered alongside the more modest estimated monetary value of the case. In successfully litigating to protect both procedural and substantive public pension rights on these facts, the Association was vindicating important rights affecting the public interest. The Association’s actions protected the pensions of the 590 living pensioners and their families, which provided a clear economic benefit. City of Oakland v. Oakland Police and Fire Retirement System, # A144653, 2018 Cal. App. Lexis 1097.
The issue in this case initiated by the EEOC was whether the contribution rates of the county’s age-based employee retirement benefit plan were permissible based on financial considerations or whether they violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The trial court found that the county violated the ADEA by imposing disparate plan contribution rates based on age. A federal appeals court vacated an order denying the EEOC's request for retroactive monetary relief from the county. The court ruled that retroactive monetary awards, such as the back pay sought here, were mandatory legal remedies under the ADEA upon a finding of liability. The court's conclusion was not altered by the county’s contention that the EEOC unduly delayed the investigation. Therefore, the court ordered a determination of the amount of back pay to which the affected employees were entitled under the ADEA. EEOC v. Baltimore County, #16-2216, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 26644 (4th Cir.).
The plaintiff challenged the defendant’s forfeiture of his vested retirement benefits as a county employee based on a determination by the county that his gambling conduct was committed in the scope of his official duties as defined in the California Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013, Government Code 7522 et seq. An intermediate state appeals court ruled that section 7522.72 was constitutionally sound, but that the defendant retirement association, not the county, bore the burden to give the plaintiff the required due process protections in determining whether his conviction fell within the scope of the statute. Therefore, the court modified the judgment to require the defendant to provide the required due process. Hipsher v. Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association, #B276486, 24 Cal. App. 5th 740, 234 Cal. Rptr. 3d 564, 2018 Cal. App. Lexis 561.
A Virginia trial court did not err in ruling that a retired firefighter was not a disabled person entitled to receive health insurance benefits under the Virginia Line of Duty Death and Disability Act, Va. Code 9.1-400 et seq. He was diagnosed with throat cancer after he retired from the fire department but did not experience any health problems while he worked as a firefighter. His duties as a firefighter ceased as of his retirement. Because he became disabled after he retired, his claim for insurance coverage under the Act was not viable. The Supreme Court of Virginia held that the plaintiff was not a “disabled person” entitled to health insurance coverage under the Act because his incapacity did not prevent the “further performance” of his duties as a firefighter. Jones v. Von Moll, #170639, 2018 Va. Lexis 73.
The plaintiff worked at various federal jobs from 1968-1991, In 2014, he applied for deferred retirement benefits under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and requested to make a post-employment deposit into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (CSRDF). The Office of Personnel Management denied the requests. The Merit Systems Protection Board affirmed, stating that all of his appointments, including his final position, were either not-to-exceed appointments or indefinite appointments in the excepted service. While he had shown that he had sufficient creditable federal service, he failed to show that any of that service was performed in a position covered under the Act. A federal appeals court agreed. Under 5 U.S.C. 8333(a)–(b), to qualify for a CSRS retirement annuity, an employee must have performed at least five years of creditable civilian service, and must have served at least one of his last two years of federal service in a covered position, subject to the Act. Temporary, intermittent, term, and excepted indefinite appointments are not covered positions. Substantial evidence supported the conclusion that the plaintiff’s service was excluded from CSRDF coverage. Lledo v. Office of Personnel Management, #17-1717, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 7817 (Fed. Cir.).
|
The highest court in Massachusetts upheld a ruling by the state Contributory Retirement Appeal Board (CRAB) that sick or vacation payments, when used to supplement workers’ compensation payments, are not “regular compensation” as defined in a state statute for purposes of calculating public employee retirement pay. Public Employee Retirement Administrative Commission v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board, #SJC-12331, 2018 Mass. Lexis 85, 168 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P61844, 90 N.E.3d 744 (Mass. 2018). |
While both bonus pay and longevity pay separately were expressly listed in a California state statute as items of “special compensation” to be included in a calculation of retirement benefits by the California Public Employees Retirement System, a combination of bonus pay and longevity pay received together had not been expressly determined to be special compensation. Therefore, a longevity performance stipend paid to a county’s deputy sheriffs that combined bonus pay and longevity pay did not count as “special compensation” as the list was exclusive. The payments were therefore not used to calculate retirement benefits. DiCarlo v. County of Monterey, #H041400,12 Cal. App. 5th 468, 218 Cal. Rptr. 3d 829, 2017 Cal. App. Lexis 513.
A complaint filed by unions representing the firefighters and police officers employed by a city claimed that legislation modifying various state-run pension plans for government employees, including a plan that covered municipal firefighters and police officers, unconstitutionally repudiated contractual obligations owed to the employees. A federal appeals court ruled that the lawsuit was properly dismissed. It found that the unions failed to allege that the legislation at issue unconstitutionally impaired any contractual rights of the union members. Further, the federal court was not the proper place to litigate the unions’ claims that the city was failing to abide by the terms of its ordinances or collective bargaining agreements, which were state law issues. The absence of any claim that the current benefits provided by the state fell below the present value of the contributions made by the pensioners, together with the absence of the alleged contract, eliminated any basis for a claim under the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and the use of legislation that was not otherwise constitutionally infirm to reduce a non-mandatory benefit did not violate due process. Cranston Firefighters, IAFF v. Raimondo, #17-1293, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 1472 (1st Cir.).
The plaintiff’s job as a Naval Submarine base firefighter required a security clearance. The Navy revoked his clearance because of concerns about his personal finances. He was offered the option to retire, rather than be removed, and he chose to do so believing that his retirement benefits were at risk. In fact, he would have received those benefits regardless of whether he retired or was terminated, under 5 U.S.C. 8312-8315. After learning that his benefits were not at risk, he appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board, claiming that his retirement was involuntary. Based on the claim that an agency manager had told him he would lose his benefits if he were terminated, the Board held that an agency is required to provide employees with adequate information to make an informed retirement decision but that, if the Navy would have removed him, he was not entitled to reinstatement or back pay. A federal appeals court dismissed his petition for lack of jurisdiction. The Board’s ruling was not a “final decision,” but required the Navy to decide whether and when he would have been terminated if he had not retired, and this had not been determined. Morrison v. Dept. of the Navy, #16-2542, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 24082 (Fed. Cir.).
A male flunked out of the FBI Academy by failing by one push-up to complete the 30 push-ups required of male trainees. He sued for sex discrimination on the basis that female trainees were only required to do 14 push-ups. The trial court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on his sex discrimination claim, and the defendant appealed. The federal appeals court held that an employer does not violate Title VII when it uses physical fitness standards that distinguish between the sexes on the basis of their physiological differences but impose an equal burden of compliance on both men and women, requiring the same level of physical fitness of each. Because the trial court failed to apply this rule in reaching its decision, further proceedings were required. Bauer v. Lynch, #14-2323, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 379 (4th Cir.).
A city filed for bankruptcy. Under its existing collective bargaining agreement with a police union, the city paid the full premium cost for retirees and employees of any medical plan offered through the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS or PERS) and paid the full premium for other city retirees, so it was subject to a state statute that establishes a minimum level of employer contribution toward medical premiums. The city sought approval from the bankruptcy court to reject its labor agreements. While this motion was pending, the union and the city reached an agreement and the city voluntarily dismissed its motion to reject the collective bargaining contract. Under the agreement, health insurance benefits were reduced. After months of negotiations toward a superseding agreement, the city declared an impasse. The union filed suit, alleging that the city was not bargaining in good faith, in violation of a state statute. An intermediate state court of appeals upheld the denial of the petition. The union did not show that its members had a vested right to a full premium. Substantial evidence supported findings that the city did not engage in surface bargaining or rush to declare an impasse. Vallejo Police Officers Association v. City of Vallejo, #A144987, 2017 Cal. App. Unpub. Lexis 5816, 2017 WL 4182785.
Because of a city’s dire financial situation, the state of Michigan placed it under the supervision of an emergency manager under the authority of a state statute. The emergency manager, with the approval of the state’s treasurer, issued a series of orders temporarily replacing city retiree health-care benefits with monthly stipend payments that retirees could use to buy individual health-care insurance. The retired employees filed a federal civil rights lawsuit claiming violations of the Contracts Clause of the U.S, Constitution, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Takings Clause. A federal appeals court rejected these claims, holding that an alleged Contracts Clause violation cannot be the basis for a federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 US.C. Sec. 1983. Further, as the other federal constitutional claims for deprivation of property derived from contract, the court found that a state contract lawsuit would be sufficient to protect any contractual property rights the retirees might have. As the claims failed on their merits, the appeals court found it unnecessary to rule on an asserted Eleventh Amendment immunity defense. Kaminski v. Coulter, #16-1768, 865 F.3d 339 (6th Cir. 2017).
A county offered retirement incentives to employees age 65 or older. Under one package, retirees were entitled to five years of supplemental health insurance (secondary to Medicare coverage) through a private insurer and could return to work, part-time, as at-will employees. The private health insurer later informed the county that if retirees working as part-time employees remained on the plan, the plan would no longer qualify for special exemptions under federal law and the county’s costs would skyrocket. The county notified all rehired retirees who were covered by the supplement insurance that their employment would end. The county was entitled to summary judgment on terminated employees’ age discrimination claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the equal protection clause. The key criterion that distinguished the terminated employees from all other county employees was not their age but rather their participation in the health insurance plan at issue. The county's action was rationally related to preserving supplemental insurance coverage for its retirees while avoiding further financial hardship, and there was no evidence that the county engaged in any prohibited stereotyping. Carson v. Lake County, #16-3665, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 13494 (7th Cir.).
California firefighters and the union representing them sued the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) to
continue to allow eligible public employees to purchase at cost up to five
years of non-qualifying service credit (airtime) to increase pension benefits
paid in retirement, by increasing their service credit. A state statute
eliminated this right as of January 1, 2013. The plaintiffs argued that this
violated the contracts clause of the state constitution. An intermediate state
appeals court rejected this claim. The changes in the statute governing airtime
service credit were wholly reasonable and carried “some material relation to
the theory of a pension system and its successful operation.” The
plaintiffs were entitled only to a “reasonable” pension, not one providing
fixed or definite benefits immune from modification or elimination by the
governing body, and did not show that elimination of their right to purchase
airtime credit cost them their right to a reasonable pension. Cal Fire Local 2881 v. California Public
Employees' Retirement System, #A142793, 2016 Cal. App. Lexis 1151.
A County Correctional Officers Association (CCOA)
appealed a judgment in favor of a county in a dispute over pensions payments,
specifically, cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs), for its members. Under the
California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA), limits on any
government contributions to pensions take effect after 2018. After the county
reduced the COLA contributions it had been making, CCOA contended, in effect,
that PEPRA shielded its members from any such reductions until 2018. Rejecting
this argument, an intermediate state appeals court said that "PEPRA was
intended to rein in what was perceived by the Legislature to be overly generous
retirement packages for public employees, but delayed the effective date of
some provisions to ease the transition and allow some changes to be negotiated
gradually. It was not designed to shield compensation packages that were
already subject to reduction under prior laws, specifically” a 1937 statute,
the County Employees Retirement Law (CERL) under which a county had the power
to change the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) before 2012. San Joaquin County Correctional etc. v. County of San
Joaquin, #CO79413, 2016 Cal, App. Lexis 1111.
Back in 1980, a city
added a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) to its Fire and Police Pension Fund.
In 2014, after having previously created a fixed annual 3% increase in
retirement benefits, the city amended the COLA to a lower, variable annual
increase. Participants in the fund challenged this change, claiming that it was
a violation of the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution, depriving them of
the expected higher COLA. Upholding the dismissal of this claim, a federal
appeals court ruled that there was no unmistakable evidence of the city’s
intent to be bound to the fixed COLA, because the COLA was neither vested nor
accrued within the meaning of the City Code. In the absence of some clear
indication that the legislature intends to bind itself contractually, a statute
does not create a contractual relationship. The fact that the Fund described
the fixed three-percent COLA as “guaranteed” when enacting a 2000 amendment did
not prove that the city intended to be bound to the fixed COLA. Frazier v. City
of Chattanooga, #15-6405, 841 F.3d 433 (6th Cir. 2016).
The plaintiff began working
as an Immigration Inspector with the Immigration and Naturalization Service of
the Department of Justice in 1987. From 1988-2000, she served as a Customs
Inspector with the Customs Service of the Department of the Treasury. From 2000
forward, she was employed in various Instructor positions at the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) providing training to federal criminal
investigators and law enforcement officers. In 2012, she requested review of
her employment history so that she could obtain Customs Officer retirement
credit for her past service with INS and Customs. Under federal law, certain
groups, including firefighters and law enforcement officers who have served in
physically rigorous jobs can receive enhanced retirement benefits including
eligibility to retire with an annuity at an earlier age than many other federal
employees and eligibility to retire based on fewer years of service. Those
provisions were extended to Customs and Border Patrol Officers in 2008.
Rejecting her plea that those provisions be applied to her Customs Service
employment, the Merit Systems Protection Board and Federal Circuit ruled that
amendments to the law did not provide for "retroactive service"
credit for work performed before July of 2008. Fitzgerald v. Dep't of Homeland
Sec., #15-3154, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 17132 (Fed. Cir.).
A retired police officer elected to pay
for retiree health coverage through a group plan offered by the city which had
employed him. It was administered by Blue Cross. When he turned 65, he was
getting medical care for congestive heart failure and severe osteoarthritis of
the spine. Blue Cross started denying his claims based on the failure to
provide them with a "record of the Medicare payment." He had no
Medicare coverage as he had never paid into Medicare and his employee group had
not opted to obtain Medicare coverage. He never claimed to have Medicare
coverage. The city did start to participate in Medicare, but that was after he
retired. The State Employees' Insurance Board determined that his Blue Cross
retiree health insurance was the secondary payer to Medicare, even though he
had no Medicare. He sued the city, arguing that it had broken an agreement to
provide him with lifetime health benefits upon retirement. The Alabama Supreme
Court upheld summary judgment for the city. Even if the statements in the
employee handbook created an employment agreement, nothing in the handbook
could be interpreted as promising health benefits to retirees much less
definite vested lifetime benefits. Boman v. City of Gadsden, #1150987, 2016 Ala.
Lexis 102.
A retired California city manager sued to
challenge a decision of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System
(CalPERS) that significantly reduced his expected retirement benefit. An
intermediate California appeals court agreed with the trial court that the
greater base salary in the plaintiff's March 2007 employment agreement did not
qualify as his pay rate for the purpose of calculating the amount of his
retirement benefit because that salary was not paid pursuant to a publicly available
pay schedule. As a result, the plaintiff had no right to have his retirement
benefit calculated based on that greater base salary. Tanner v. CalPERS,
#C078458, 248 Cal. App. 4th 743, 2016 Cal. App. Lexis 520.
A man who worked for many years for the Customs
and Border Protection service participated in the Civil Service Retirement
System, 5 U.S.C. 8331–8351. He applied for a retirement annuity. By law, his
retirement annuity had to reflect his highest average annual pay, calculated on
the basis of three consecutive years. Calculations for a customs officer such
as the plaintiff should also include overtime pay up to a maximum of $17,500.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM), did not include anything close to
$17,500 in overtime pay although the plaintiff claimed that he received more
than $17,500 in overtime pay in the years in question. The Merit Systems
Protection Board (MSPB) upheld the OPM’s calculation. A federal appeals court
vacated the ruling, noting that the record i was internally contradictory about
what overtime pay the plaintiff received, but that neither the OPM or the MSPB
sought further information, such as pay stubs, that might definitively resolve
the issue. Further proceedings were therefore required. Grover v. Office of Pers.
Mgmt., #15-3160, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 12978 (Fed. Cir.).
A Massachusetts police officer was convicted of
21 counts of unauthorized access to a computer system. On the same day, he
filed an application for voluntary retirement. The computer belonged to the
state human resources division. Gaining the unauthorized access, he viewed the
civil service promotional examination scores of twenty-one other police
officers, including four officers who were his direct competitors for a
promotion to the position of captain in the police department. In order to view
the examination scores of these other officers, he created a distinct user
account for each officer, using the Social Security numbers and birth dates of
the officers. A public employment retirement commission found that the criminal
convictions related to his office or position and that, therefore, he was not
entitled to receive a retirement allowance under the terms of a state statute.
A trial court ruled that forfeiture of the plaintiff's lifetime retirement
allowance was excessive and violated the excessive fines prohibition of the
Eighth Amendment. The highest court in Massachusetts agreed, finding that the
mandatory forfeiture of a public employee's retirement allowance upon
conviction of a crime “involving violation of the laws applicable to his office
or position” constituted a fine for purposes of the Eighth Amendment, and was
not proportional to the gravity of the offenses the plaintiff was convicted of.
Pub. Employee Ret. Admin. Comm’n v. Bettencourt, #SJC-11906, 474 Mass. 60, 47
N.E.3d 667 (2016).
A trial court should not have directed the Board
of the Los Angeles Department of Fire and Police Pension Commissioners to set
the maximum subsidy contributed by the city to retired firefighters and police
officers insurance premiums without regard to later ordinances freezing the
subsidy. The ordinances did not show that there was a legislative intent to
create a vested right to a Board determination of the amount of the subsidy.
The city council retained the final authority to control the amount of the
subsidy. Fry v. City of L.A., #B259791, 245 Cal. App. 4th 539, 2016 Cal. App.
Lexis 175.
A retired police sergeant was issued a retired
officer identification card with no expiration date upon his retirement in
2004. In 2011, he applied for a replacement card since his had broken. The
city's police commissioner denied the request, stating that the plaintiff had
not met the "standard set by the Department." The Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to receive a
replacement ID card since the commissioner had abused his discretion in finding
that he had not met the standard for the card. The plaintiff had been cleared
of any wrongdoing in connection with the citizen complaint that was pending
when he retired. Frawley v. Police Comm’r of Cambridge, #SJC-11903, 473 Mass.
716, 46 N.E.3d 504 (2016).
A provision of the Illinois state Constitution
provides that "Membership in any pension or retirement system of the
State, any unit of local government or school district, or any agency or
instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the
benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired." The state
legislature passed a law reducing certain pension benefits provided by four
City of Chicago employee pension plans, based on the fact that contributions
from employees and the city were inadequate to provide the promised benefits.
The Illinois Supreme Court declared that law unconstitutional and unenforceable
in violation of the state constitutional pension provision. Jones v. Mun.
Employees' Annuity & Benefit Fund, #119618, 2016 IL 119618, 2016 Ill. Lexis
276.
A city sought to compel the city's employee
retirement system to increase employee's contributions to their retirement fund
to help pay for an $800 million investment loss the fund had suffered. Four
public employee labor unions intervened in the case, echoing the arguments made
by the retirement system as to why the city's request should be denied. The
case was settled, with the city agreeing not to seek to make the employees pay
for past unfunded accrued actuarial liabilities, and to meet and confer about
any future changes. The unions sought to recover $1,785,147 in public interest
attorneys' fees under a California state statute. An intermediate California
appeals court upheld the denial of such a fee award when the unions failed to
show that their intervention was necessary to the outcome of the case, or that
the venue and discovery motions they filed had any significant impact on the
litigation. San Diego Municipal Employees Assoc. v. City of San Diego,
#D066886,244 Cal. App. 4th 906, 2016 Cal. App. Lexis 94.
A city tried to terminate a retired employee's
health plan coverage and require him to accept Medicare based on the adoption
of an ordinance mandating that all retirees had to apply for Medicare when they
reached the age of 65. The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that the city could
not do this as the plaintiff had a vested right under his contract with the
city to continue to participate in the health plan and he retired before the
effective date of the ordinance. His retirement benefits were a form of
deferred compensation for the services he gave the city. Born v. City of
Slidell, #2015-C-0136, 2015 La. Lexis 2184.
Former police officers and firefighters who had
been employed by local public agencies contended that the California Public
Employees' Retirement System should be paying them additional enhanced retirement
benefits under the Public Employees' Retirement Law, Gov. Code section 2000 et
seq., based on either additional retirement service credit they had purchased
or military service credit. They were denied the extra benefits because they
received disability retirement benefits before age 50. An intermediate
California appeals court rejected most of their claims, finding that neither
the statute nor their contracts entitled them to the additional retirement
benefits they sought. The court also rejected constitutional claims for
violation of due process or equal protection. But the court allowed claims to
go forward for rescission and breach of fiduciary duty, based on the
plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant retirement system improperly failed to
disclose the potential loss of the value of purchased service credit if
plaintiffs suffered disability, Marzec v. CalPERS, #B246667, 236 Cal. App. 4th
889, 2015 Cal. App. Lexis 393.
A former employee of a Sheriff's Department was
entitled to receive a disability pension of half his prior salary. Based on his
34 years of service, he was receiving an additional amount increasing his
pension to the amount he would have received as a service pension. The IRS
rejected his argument that the entire amount of his retirement allowance should
be regarded as excluded from taxation because it was a workers' compensation
program. The Tax Court and a federal appeals court held that the additional
amount of his retirement allowance exceeding what he would have received based solely
on his disability was taxable. The additional amounts were not paid on the
basis of his injuries, but solely on the basis of his years of service, and
therefore were taxable. Sewards v. CIR, #12-72985, , 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 7821
(9th Cir.).
A town had adopted the requirements of a state
statute under which it had to contribute over 50% of the health insurance
premiums of all retired town employees. Before employing the plaintiff,
however, the town also adopted a policy under which it only contributed to
retirees' group health insurance premiums if an employee retired after at least
ten years of service with the town. As a result, the town found the plaintiff
ineligible for a contribution to her health insurance premiums when she retired
because she had worked for less than ten years. The highest court in
Massachusetts found that the state statute governed both whether and in what
amounts the town had to contribute to a retiree's health insurance premium, and
that the policy requiring a minimum term of service was invalid since it
contradicted the statute. Galenski v. Town of Erving, #SJC-11772, 471 Mass.
305, 2015 Mass. Lexis 170.
A number of retired D.C. Metropolitan police
officers were later rehired by the D. C. Protective Services Division, an
agency charged with protecting D.C. owned property and government buildings.
They received salaries for their new jobs and pension benefits from their
former jobs. A provision of the D.C. statutes, however, aimed at preventing
so-called "double dipping," required that their current salaries be
reduced by the amount of their pensions. A federal appeals court upheld a
ruling that the salary reductions did not violate the Public Salary Tax Act of
939, 4 U.S.C. 111(a), a statute that only permitted states or D.C. to
"tax" compensation paid to federal employees if that tax did not
discriminate against federal employees. The court ruled that the salary
reduction provision was not a "tax" but instead reduced D.C.'s total
expenditure on salaries. The amount of the reduction was not collected through
normal taxation mechanisms and did not raise revenue, but only lower
expenditures. Cannon v. Dist. of Columbia, #14-7014, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 6320
(D.C. Cir.).
The state of Illinois has five separate
state-funded retirement systems for various public employees, all providing
traditional defined benefit plans that were covered by a pension protection
clause in the state constitution. The state legislature enacted amendments to
the state pension code that lowered the amount of retirement annuity benefits
for persons who first became members of four of those retirement systems before
January 1, 2011. The Illinois Supreme Court upheld a ruling that the amendments
violated the pension protection clause of the Illinois Constitution and
therefore should be permanently enjoined. The court commented that it
recognized the financial difficulties which state government had recently been
facing but that those difficulties did not alter preexisting pension
obligations. In re Pension Reform Litig., #118585, 2015 IL 118585, 2015 Ill.
Lexis 499.
Two county employees sought a mandamus
order requiring the county employees' retirement association to allow them to
buy retirement service credit for military service as midshipmen at the U.S.
Navy Academy. The state intermediate appeals court ordered the order issued. It
ruled that the terms "public service" and "military
service" in the county's employee retirement law included such service at
the Academy, and that the employees were entitled under state law to purchase
such retirement service credits. Lanquist v. Ventura County Employees'
Retirement Association, #B251179, 2015 Cal. App. Lexis 239.
San Francisco city and county voters passed a
ballot initiative under which the payment of supplemental cost of living
allowance (COLA) to retired city and county employees on the retirement fund
being fully funded based on the market value of the assets for the prior year.
A political action committee representing the retired city employees' interests
sought to invalidate that initiative as an illegal impairment of vested
contractual rights in violation of the U.S. and California Constitution's
contract clauses. An intermediate state appeals court ruled that the full
funding requirement could not be enforced as to current city employees and
those who retired after the supplemental cost of living allowance went into
effect in November, 1996 pursuant to an earlier initiative. However, city
employees who retired before that date had no vested contractual rights to the
supplemental COLA payments, so the initiative could be applied to their
pensions. Protect Our Benefits v. City and County of San Francisco, #A140095,
2015 Cal. App. Lexis 269.
A Wisconsin county paid pensions to its retired
employees that were calculated by multiplying their final salary by a
percentage known as a multiplier and then multiplying the result by the
employee's years of service. An ordinance passed in 2011 reduced the multiplier
to 1.6 percent from 2 percent for all county service performed on or after its
effective date. A county employee and her union claimed that this was a breach
of contract because she had a vested right to have the higher multiplier
applied to her post-2011 service, and that she did not consent to the
reduction. The Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected these arguments, because the
amended ordinance only applied to future service credits not yet earned, and
any benefits already accrued were protected and not diminished. Suzanne Stoker
v. Milwaukee County, #2012AP2466, 2014 WI 130, 2014 Wisc. Lexis 950.
Statutory standards for the state of Illinois'
contributions to health insurance premiums for members of three of the state's
employee retirement systems were constitutionally protected by a pension
protection clause of the state Constitution. The Illinois Supreme Court
rejected the argument that this protection only applied to retirement annuities
while not applying to health insurance. Kanerva v. Weems, #115811, 2014 IL 115811, 2014 Ill. Lexis
847.
Amendments to Maine statutes that had the effect
of reducing cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) to retired state employees'
benefits did not violate either the Contract Clause or the Takings Clause of
the U.S. Constitution. There was no unmistakable intent by the state of Maine
to be contractually bound to the prior COLA scheme and an existing statutory
commitment barring reduction of enumerated benefits did not apply to COLAs. ME.
Ass’n of Retirees v. Bd. of Trustees, #13-1933, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 12164 (1st
Cir.).
An emergency manager appointed by Michigan's
governor because of a city's significant economic difficulties made
modifications to the collective bargaining agreements of retired city workers
and severance benefits, including pension benefits, for retirees not covered by
the collective bargaining agreements. These modifications would, among other
things, modify or eliminate some retiree health care benefits. Further
proceedings were ordered to determine whether provisions of the bankruptcy code
could bind the retirees without their consent and whether state sovereignty
precluded the application of the federal bankruptcy law in this manner. Also to
be considered on remand were whether the emergency manager's orders were
legislative acts under the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and
whether it was "necessary and reasonable" under the Contract Clause
to reduce and/or eliminate the retiree health care benefits at issue, as well
as whether the retirees stated a viable due process claim and whether the
collective bargaining agreements created protected property rights. City of
Pontiac Retired Emps. Ass'n v. Schimmel, #12-2087, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 8392,
2014 Fed App. 0094P (6th Cor.).
A California city put a cap on retired city
workers' health benefits after it failed to reach an agreement with the
employee union. An intermediate state court rejected a retiree's claim that the
cap on her health benefits was unlawful. The retiree health benefits were an
employment benefit not a benefit under the city's retirement system, and
therefore restrictions in the city charter that required a majority vote by all
members of the pension system before any reduction in retirement system
benefits took place did not apply. Dailey v. City of San Diego, #D060049, 2013
Cal. App. Lexis 1082, ordered published 2014.
Michigan's governor appointed an emergency
manager for a city having economic difficulties. That manager, acting under a
law known as Public Act 4, modified the collective bargaining agreements of the
city's retired employees. He also modified severance benefits, including
pension benefits, that the city had previously given to retirees who were not
covered by a collective bargaining agreement. Retired employees challenged the
emergency manager's power to reduce their retirement benefits, claiming that it
violated their federal constitutional rights under the Contracts Clause, the
Due Process Clause, and the Bankruptcy Clause. A federal appeals court noted
that there was a question of Michigan state law as to whether the legislature
violated the state constitution in passing Public Act 4, and, additionally,
that Michigan's voters had subsequently rejected Public Act 4 in a ballot
referendum, which may have rendered the emergency manager's actions void. The
appeals court, therefore, declined to rule on the federal constitutional
claims, remanding for further proceedings to determine whether the actions
taken under the now rejected law still have any power. City of Pontiac Retired
Emps. Ass'n v. Schimmel, #12-2087, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 16519, 2013 Fed. App.
0215P (6th Cir.).
A retired police officer and several retired
firefighters challenged a city's decision to reduce the amount of retirement
health benefits allegedly promised when they retired. Seeking to resolve the
case on nonconstitutional grounds if possible, the appeals court ordered
further proceedings to see whether any of the plaintiffs had a specific vested
right to certain health benefits based on the terms of the contracts in effect
when they retired. In doing so, the trial court should presume that there was
vesting unless the contract proves that no such vesting was intended. Marconi
v. The City of Joliet, #3-11-086, 2013 IL App (3d) 110865.2013 Ill. App. Lexis
271
A county did not breach its contractual
obligation to provide health insurance benefits to sheriff's office command
officer retirees when the contract that provided for them required that payment
be made from a specefic fund and made the benefits contingent on adequate
funding. The benefits were cut when there were no longer adequate money in the
funds to pay for the benefits. While a new fund with more adequate funding had
been created, it was a product of a new separate contract, and could not be used
to fulfill the obligations imposed by the former contract. James v. Clackamas
County Court:, #S059680, 353 Ore. 431, 2013 Ore. Lexis 270.
A union representing police officers believed
that a retiree health insurance subsidy provision in a collective bargaining
agreement locked the subsidy in place as it existed at the time of the
officer's retirement. The union sought arbitration of a dispute over the
county's attempt to reduce the subsidy. The county argued that it need not
arbitrate as the collective bargaining agreement had expired and that the
subsidy was subject to change from year to year. An arbitrator agreed, but an
intermediate appeals court vacated the award. Reversing, the highest court in
Maryland ruled that an arbitration clause can survive the expiration of a
collective bargaining agreement as to vested rights obtained during the
contract's term, and that the issue of arbitrability had been one for the
arbitrator to initially determined rather than the courts. Baltimore County
Fraternal Order of Police Lodge v. Baltimore County Court, #3/12, 2012 Md.
Lexis 750.
City employees hired between July 1, 2005 and
February 16, 2007 appealed a summary judgment in favor of the city which upheld
an ordinance that made them ineligible to receive certain ancillary retirement
benefits known as the "Four Benefits." The Four Benefits are a
"13th retirement check," payable when there are excess earnings in
the retirement system at the end of the year; a Deferred Retirement Option Drop,
an alternative method of benefit accrual; the right to purchase up to five
years of additional service credits; and retiree medical health benefits.
The appeals court upheld the ruling below. It
found that the ordinance's retroactivity did not violate the U.S. or state
Constitutions, did not violate the city charter or state law, and that the
defendant employees had not obtained any vested rights to the benefits. Because
of that, they were not classified as members of the city employees retirement
system and no vote was required under the terms of the city charter. The court
also found that the retroactive ordinance only altered the city's laws to
conform to existing agreements with employees on benefits modification. City of
San Diego v. Haas, #D058225, 2012 Cal. App. Lexis 763 (4th Dist.).
An intermediate California appeals court rejected
the claim of retired firefighters or their surviving spouses that two cities
were required to make additional payments a year earlier than they did towards
the cost of their health insurance under an amendment to a state statute
designed to eliminate some of the disparities between municipal contributions
to the health care costs of current employees and the contribution to the cost
of health care for retirees. The court found that it should defer to the
interpretation of the disputed language in the statute by the health care plan
administrator that the increased contributions had to be made beginning on
January 1, 2008, rather than on January 1, 2007, as the plaintiffs claimed. Bernard
v. City of Oakland, #A127853, 2012 Cal. App. Lexis 81 (Cal App.).
The California Supreme Court stated that a county
and its employees can enter into a binding implied contract granting a vested
right to health insurance benefits on retired county employees when there is no
explicit statute or ordinance prohibiting such an arrangement. The court made
its ruling in response to a certified question submitted to it by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a case in which an association of
county employees challenged the validity of changes a county made to health
benefits for retirees, which would have the effect of eliminating a subsidy for
retirees' health insurance. Retired Employees Assn. v. Co. of Orange,
#S184059, 2011 Cal. Lexis 12109, 52 Cal. 4th 1171.
Unionized city employees who accepted early
retirement under an incentive program while the city was negotiating with their
unions for new contracts were not entitled to retroactive pay raises provided
for city employees in the new contracts. The early retirement incentive program
did not contain any provisions entitling them to such back pay, and the new
contracts expressly excluded them from receiving such retroactive payments.
This did not violate their due process rights. Marcatante v. City of Chicago,
#10-2114, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 17683 (7th Cir.).
When a city realized that police and firefighters
who had previously retired on disability pensions were receiving full
reimbursement of their medical benefits without legal entitlement, the payments
were stopped. In a lawsuit brought by the retirees, a federal appeals court
ruled that, except for two retirees who received explicit promises of continued
full medical benefits, the retirees had no right to such payments. The city had
no obligation to continue payments not authorized by law, and to do so would be
a misuse of public funds. Cahoon v. Shelton, #10-2134, 647 F.3d 18
(1st Cir. 2011).
While a county employee's retirement fund need not
disclose to a newspaper the ages of pension recipients at retirement, it did
have to disclose, under California state law, the names of retirees, and the
gross amount of the pension benefits that each retiree received. Sonoma County
Employees Retirement Assn. v. Superior Court (The Press Democrat), #A130659,
2011 Cal. App. Lexis 1124 (1st Dist.).
Under a
collective bargaining agreement entered into by a prison system and a union, an
early retirement incentive system had an "age 55 cliff." Under it, if
employees retire at 55, the employer continues to make unreduced contributions
towards their health and dental insurance costs. Employees who continue to work
past 55, however, are denied such contributions. A federal appeals court upheld
the EEOC's position that this arrangement constituted a violation of the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The court ruled that a so-called
"safe harbor" exception to the law for voluntary early retirement
programs "consistent with the purposes" of the ADEA did not apply,
since the plan here was based solely on the age of the retiring employees. It
was therefore at odds with the statute's purpose of avoiding age
discrimination. EEOC v. Minnesota Department of Corrections, #10–2699, 2011
U.S. App. Lexis (8th Cir.).
In cases where a retiree sues because his
benefits are too small, the statute of limitations begins when pension payments
begin. "In financial affairs, many citizens take a good deal on faith: not
everyone zealously checks his bank statement every month, carefully updates
insurance policies to account for new conditions, or scrutinizes the apartment
lease to ascertain rights and obligations. But concern about stale claims lies
on the other side of the balance, ... and the discovery rule only protects
those who do exercise reasonable diligence." McNamara v. City of Nashua,
#10-1322, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 654 (1st Cir.).
A city may grant a retirement incentive, but it
is not considered "salary" for pension calculation purposes. Smith v.
Westchester Police Pension Bd., #1-09-0917, 2010 Ill App. Lexis 1251 (1st
Dist.).
Federal employee was entitled to reinstatement
after taking a retirement, which was based on erroneous information about his
benefits. Although the Army did not intentionally miscalculate his future
benefits, it made no effort to verify them. Salazar v. Dept. of the Army,
#DE-0752-09-0415-I-1, 2010 MSPB 235.
Voluntary overtime compensation earned by a
California deputy sheriff was not part of his regular wages and need not be
included for purposes of computing retirement benefits. Sheldon v. Marin Co.
Empl. Ret. Assn., #A124912, 2010 Cal. App. Lexis 1809.
Massachusetts court reinstates the pension claim of a
former police lieutenant who was convicted of 21 misdemeanor counts of unlawful
access of computer records. Although accessing a computer system without
authorization is certainly a serious offense ... the court does not find that
it places at risk the integrity of the Peabody Police Department" and the
fact that he was on duty at the time "was incidental to the conduct at
issue." Public Employee Ret. Adm. Cmsn. v. Bettencourt, #09-3196-D, 2010
Mass. Super. Lexis 202.
Pennsylvania appellate court overturns a holding
that DROP plans for police officers are illegal because under an interpretation
that a police officer cannot be simultaneously retired and receiving pension
benefits and also be employed. "The employment status of a DROP
participant after his retirement status is fixed ... is irrelevant." Bor.
of Ellwood City v. Police Dept. Wage Policy Committee, #815 C.D. 2009, 2010 Pa.
Commw. Lexis 320.
Florida appellate court rejects a class action
suit that a sheriff unlawfully impaired the obligations of a valid contract by
unilaterally amending the terms of benefits for retired employees. The
voluntary act of implementing an internal policy that is subject to a
unilateral amendment or cancellation does not create contractual rights.
Carlucci v. Demings, #5D08-3728, 2010 Fla. App. Lexis 3625 (5th App. Dist.).
California appellate court holds that a public
retirement system has the right to initiate collection proceedings to cure
under-funding of pensions. City of San Diego v. Employee Retirement System,
#D054688, 2010 Cal. App. Lexis 1000 (4th Dist.).
Florida appellate panel affirms an administrative
decision to deny retirement benefits to a former sheriff, who pled guilty to a
federal mail fraud offense. Jenne v. State of Florida, #1D09-2959, 2010 Fla.
App. Lexis 5234 (1st Dist.).
An Oregon city's policy of denying health insurance
coverage to its retirees does not violate their due process rights. The
plaintiffs lacked a legally protected property interest to health benefits.
Doyle v. City of Medford, #07-35753, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 10722, 188 LRRM (BNA)
2799 (9th Cir.).
Pennsylvania appellate court rejects the pension claim
of a former public employee who was convicted of attempted obstruction and
attempted tampering with records. Because the crimes of attempt and conspiracy
are subject to the same criminal sentences as the underlying substantive
crimes, it logically follows that they would also be subject to the same
forfeiture consequences. Luzerne Co. Ret. Bd. v. Seacrist, #217 C.D. 2009, 2010
Pa. Commw. Lexis 23.
Illinois Supreme Court rules that a convicted
felon who earned pension credits from multiple public agencies or offices,
forfeits all pension rights, even though he was not convicted for acts while
serving in prior capacities. "As the victims of Ryan's crimes, the
taxpayers of the State of Illinois are under no obligation to now fund his
retirement." Ryan v. Board of Trustees, #108184, 2010 Ill. Lexis 273.
An off-duty Maryland police officer’s criminal
act can, as a matter of law, be enough to disqualify his application for
retirement benefits. Whether off-duty criminality actually disqualifies an
application is something that must be decided by the retirement board, as a
matter of fact. Here, the retirement board found that an officer’s persistent
abuse of cocaine for eight years was sufficient reason to deny him retirement
benefits, even if he performed his duties in a competent manner. On appeal, the
panel noted that "the issue was not whether [the retiree] had abused
cocaine ... [but] how serious a breach of his duty that abuse represented."
In upholding the denial of benefits, the appellate panel wrote that the officer
engaged in long-term abuse, rather than an "isolated lapse of judgment
under extreme emotional circumstances." Employees Ret. Sys. of Baltimore
Co. v. Brown, #0954-2008, 2009 Md. App. Lexis 94. Note: The Maryland appellate
panel cited two other states that have upheld a denial of retirement benefits
for similar misconduct. DeSoto v. Hialeah Police Pension Fund, #3D03-63, 870
So.2d 844 (Fla. App. 2003) and Siwek v. Ret. Bd. of Policemen’s Fund,
#1-00-4147, 756 N.E.2d 374 (Ill. App. 2001).
As a matter of due process, an Illinois appellate
court refuses to enforce a time limit to file a death benefit claim because a
letter sent to the widow of a deceased firefighter did not "fairly and
adequately inform" her of the retirement board’s decision. Coleman v.
Retirement Bd. of the Firemen’s Annuity of Chicago, #1-07-2355, 2009 Ill. App.
Lexis 440 (1st Dist.).
Ninth Circuit holds that retired employees who
receive healthcare benefits, while no longer members of a valid bargaining
unit, have standing to challenge an end of benefits as "plan
participant" under ERISA, 29 U.S. Code §1132. Poore v. Simpson Paper Co.,
#05-36060, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 11174 (9th Cir.).
Appellate court declines to find that a voluntary
retirement constituted constructive discharge. The plaintiff, a police
commander accused of sexual harassment, chose early retirement in order to
retain lifetime health coverage, which he would have forfeited if he was terminated.
His §1983 action fails, because he was not forced to make an on-the-spot
decision. Knappenberger v. City of Phoenix, #07-15774, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis
11106 (9th Cir.).
Current city employees lack standing to sue over
a lack of health-care benefits for retirees. Bova v. City of Medford,
#08-35091, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 9606, 106 FEP Cases (BNA) 206 (9th Cir.).
"The receipt of a disability pension is a property
right that cannot be diminished without procedural due process. Without notice
and without a hearing, the Board unilaterally attempted to modify the
disability pension that it had previously awarded to the plaintiff. As a matter
of due process, the Board should have provided the plaintiff with notice and an
opportunity to be heard before modifying his pension." Kosakowski v. Bd.
of Tr. of Calumet City Police Pension Fund, #1-08-1898, 2009 Ill. App. Lexis
(1st Dist.).
Illinois Supreme Court affirms an appellate
ruling that held that the benefits paid to the surviving spouse of a police officer
are frozen, and are not subject to COLA increases given to retired officers.
Village of Roselle v. Roselle Police Pension Bd., #106741, 2009 Ill. Lexis 323.
(Unpub. 2009).
A federal employee for
20+ years, who cashed out $30,000 in retirement contributions following his
termination, was not entitled to collect monthly retirement benefits. By
electing to receive his contributions in cash, he waived any future retirement
annuity. Martin v. OPM, #2008-3324, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 24657 (Unpub. Fed. Cir.).
“Although pension plans are subject to mandatory
vesting under ERISA, welfare-benefit plans are not. Retiree healthcare-benefit
plans ... are welfare benefit plans; vesting only occurs if the parties so
intended when they executed the applicable labor agreements.” Cole v.
ArvinMeritor, #06-2224, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 25762, 185 LRRM (BNA) 2654, 2008
FED App. 0447P (6th Cir.).
EEOC challenges a fire district policy that
disallowed credit toward a pension for firefighters over 65. The district
amended its program in late 2006 to allow firefighters to earn service credit
without regard to age, but did not allow retroactive credits. EEOC v. Eaton’s
Neck Fire Dist., #08-5089, complaint (E.D.N.Y. 12/18/08).
Employees who were participating in a DROP
program were bound by a new bargaining agreement that could reduce their
retirement health benefits. Benefits were not frozen when they elected the DROP
option. Millcreek Twp. Police Assn. v. Millcreek Twp., #433 C.D. 2008, 2008 Pa.
Commw. Lexis 577.
Pay calculations for Pennsylvania police officer,
using the last month's earnings, resulted in an inequity because overtime hours
earned during the last month increased their benefits -- but this method was
not available for firefighters or other city employees who worked overtime
during their last month. Such a calculation process created uncertainty in
predicting pension fund needs, whereas averaging the last 12 months is a
reasonable and appropriate construction of pension laws. Gontarchick v. City of
Pottsville, #176 C.D. 2008, 2008 Pa. Commw. Lexis 623.
Appellate court rejects an appeal where permanent
disability benefits were denied. The Retirement System's medical expert
provided testimony that sufficiently contradicted the claimant's medical
evidence. "The Comptroller is vested with the exclusive authority to weigh
the testimony offered by medical experts and to credit the opinion of one
expert over that of another." Collins v. DiNapoli, #504927, 2008 N.Y. App.
Div. Lexis 9529 (3rd Dept.).
Florida appellate court grants limited relief to
a retired city employee who was mistakenly informed that he would receive
$175,000 if he enrolled in a Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP) but the
actual amount was around $75,000. Retirement Board, City of Coral Gables v.
Pinon, #3D08-1114, 2008 Fla. App. Lexis 15120.
Federal Merit Board declines to excuse or abate a
$45,341 claim against a former federal worker who collected disability pay in
excess of the income limitations provided by law [5 C.F.R. §831.1209(a) and
§8337(d)]. Zelenka v. O.P.M., #PH-831M-07-0316-B-1, OPM Claim #328-9-643, 2008
MSPB 228.
Because a statute was silent about cost-of-living
increases for the widows of disabled police officers, an Illinois appellate
court concludes that the legislature did not intend for surviving spouses to
receive such COLA increases. Therefore a pension board has no authority to
grant COLA increases. Village of Roselle v. Police Pension Bd., #2-07-0354, 889
N.E.2d 665, 2008 Ill. App. Lexis 470 (2nd Dist.).
Florida appellate court affirms forfeiture of an ex
officer's pension benefits following his conviction for providing an escort
service for a drug courier. Simcox v. City of Hollywood Police Retir. Sys.,
#4D07-4638, 2008 Fla. App. Lexis 12687.
Municipal retirement benefits carry with them an
inference that they will continue, and under settled principles of collective
bargaining, retirees' health insurance benefits in prior bargaining agreements
survive the expiration and cannot be diminished without the consent of the
retired workers. DiBattista v. Co. of Westchester, #19762/04, 2008 N.Y. Misc.
Lexis 5212.
The courts and M.S.P.B. lacked the authority to
review an agency decision to recover $53,766 in erroneously paid retirement
benefits due to a management error. The employee failed to ask the O.P.M. to
waive collection of the overpayments. Alexander v. O.P.M., #2008-3131, 2008
U.S. App. Lexis 14765 (Unpub. Fed. Cir.).
Federal appeals court rejects a claim brought by
the widow of a federal retiree that had elected to receive a reduced annuity
with a partial survivor annuity. Although the widow claimed that her late
husband made a mistake in filling out the form because he was mentally
incompetent at the time and that he intended for her to receive the maximum
annuity. The spousal consent form bore the widow's notarized signature. Scalese
v. O.P.M., #2008-3168, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 14711 (Unpub. Fed. Cir.).
Appellate court overrules a regulation that
allowed retiring peace officers who never had been injured on duty to collect
higher benefits than an officer who was injured on duty, even if the two have
the same rank, years of service. L.A. Co. Prof. POA v. Co. of L.A., #B200582,
2008 Cal. App. Lexis 1136 (2nd Dist.).
Illinois appellate court upholds a line of duty
pension for a police officer who suffered a lower back injury in a scuffle with
a homeless man, which caused her lower back pain that prevented her from
performing the full range of duties as a police officer. The city cannot avoid
liability by claiming that she can return to work with accommodations, because
she was never offered a position within her limitations. Kouzoukas v.
Retirement Board of Chicago, #1-07-2623, 2008 Ill. App. Lexis 617 (1st Dist.).
.
In a case where a retired firefighter was
erroneously overpaid $14,768 in benefits, the Pension Board had jurisdiction to
correct the mistake. Although there is no statute that expressly authorizes a
pension board to reduce the amount of payments it has awarded to a pensioner,
the erroneous overpayments were not "an award of pension benefits."
Fields v. Schaumburg Firefighters' Pension Fund, #1-07-2721, 2008 Ill. App.
Lexis 497 (1st Dist.).
The term "regular compensation"
provided in Calif. Govt. Code 31724 includes sick leave and vacation periods,
when taken as time off. Katosh v. Sonoma Co. Employees' Ret. Assn., #A115094,
2008 Cal. App. Lexis 758 (2nd Dist.).
Eighth Circuit overturns a city's unilateral
discontinuance of health insurance premium payments for retired public
employees as required by a bargaining agreement; Art. I §10 of the U.S.
Constitution prohibits the impairment of contracts. AFGE L-2957 v. City of
Benton, Ark, #07-1589, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 1416 (8th Cir.).
Retiree benefits are not arbitrable if they don't
vest prior to expiration of the collective bargaining agreement. Crown Cork
& Seal v. Intl. Assn. of Machinists, #06-3639, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 22207
(8th Cir.).
White House police officer was not a federal law
enforcement officer within the meaning of 5 U.S. Code 8331(20), §8401(17) and 5
C.F.R. § 831.902 because his primary function was not the "investigation,
apprehension, or detention" criminals. Duties involving maintaining order
and protecting life and property do not qualify for premium retirement
benefits. Lowder v. Dept. of Homeland Security, #2006-3181, 2007 U.S. App.
Lexis 24191 (Fed. Cir.).
Retired Rhode Island police officers and
firefighters had vested rights to receive cost-of-living adjustments "that
cannot be decreased by future ordinance." Arena v. City of Providence,
#2005-207, 919 A.2d 379 2007 R.I. Lexis 39, 181 LRRM (BNA) 3307 (R.I. 2007).
EEOC revises ADEA regulations to conform to
General Dynamics Land Sys. v. Cline, 540 U.S. 581 (2004); the 6-to-3 holding
had rejected the claims of employees in their 40s who would not receive the
same retirement health benefits as the employer's older employees. Coverage
Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, EEOC Amendment to 29 C.F.R.
Part 1625, 72 (129) Fed. Reg. 36873 (7/6/07).
Federal court upholds a First and Eighth
Amendment pension forfeiture challenge by a former police officer that was
convicted of criminal civil rights violations. The ex-officer fatally shot a robbery
suspect and coworker killed another. Other officers placed throw down weapons
on the two deceased men and reported that the men were armed, in an effort to
justify the shootings. Hames v. City of Miami, #06-22360-CIV, 2007 U.S. Dist.
Lexis 25104 (S.D. Fla.). Note: The decision follows similar rulings in Kerner
v. State Employees Retir. Sys., 72 Ill. 2d 507, 382 N.E.2d 243, 246 (1978) and
Horsley v. Phila. Bd. of Pens. & Retir., 519 Pa. 264, 546 A.2d 1115 (1988).
Although a public employee, as part of the
divorce decree, was supposed to designate his ex-wife as beneficiary, he failed
to do so. Upon his death the pension properly was distributed to his children;
his signing of the dissolution agreement was not a substitute for the strict
requirements for designating a beneficiary. Hansford v. Public Empl. Retir.
Sys., #06AP-880, 2007-Ohio-1242, 2007 Ohio App. Lexis 1156.
A police officer who was a member of the
bargaining unit is bound by the pension terms of a bargaining agreement (CBA),
even if he did not agree to the contents. Norcini v. City of Coatesville, #660
C.D. 2006, 2007 Pa. Commw. Lexis 21 (2007). [N/R]
Because a sheriff's benefits plan resulted in
younger workers who were disabled to receive higher benefits than older workers
would receive, the EEOC established a prima facie violation of the ADEA,
because the plan was facially discriminatory. EEOC v. Jefferson Co. Sheriff's
Dept., #03-6437, 467 F.3d 571, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 26981, 99 FEP Cases (BNA)
180, 2006 FED App. 0405P (6th Cir.). {N/R}
Merit Board holds that a claimant was not
entitled to enhanced retirement benefits; although the maintenance of
firefighting equipment may be indirectly connected to firefighting, it does not
meet the definition of "firefighter" under 5 U.S. Code §8401(14).
Weatherby v. Dept. of the Interior, #06-3121, MSPB #SF-0842-05-0195-I-2, 2006
U.S. App. Lexis 26641 (Fed. Cir. 2006). {N/R}
New York Court rejects a claim for duty-related
retirement benefits to an officer that worked at the WTC site. There was
evidence of preexisting cardiac disease and anxiety from a family death.
Jefferson v. Kelly, #103125/06, 2006 NY Slip Op 26417, 2006 N.Y. Misc. Lexis
2954 (2006). [2006 FP Dec]
Merit Systems Board rejects as
"untimely" a retirement appeal; the federal employee waited more than
15 years before filing the appeal. Valdez v. Office of Personnel Mgmt.,
#SE-0831-90-0192-I-1, OPM #CSA-2-615-472, 2006 MSPB Lexis 4393, 2006 MSPB 238
(MSPB 2006). {N/R}
Illinois appellate court denies retirement
benefits to a former Inspector General of the Secretary of State's office
because of his guilty plea for obstruction of justice, even though he was
already retired at the time that he attempted to persuade a former secretary to
withhold sensitive" documents from a grand jury subpoena. Bauer v. State
Employees' Retir. Sys., #1-03-1589, 2006 Ill. App. Lexis 564 (2006). {N/R}
Merit Systems Protections Board sustains an
agency's determination that a former nuclear materials courier, who later became
a law enforcement specialist/instructor, was not entitled to secondary law
enforcement officer retirement benefits because his position was not a primary
LEO position; although Congress specifically granted enhanced retirement
benefits to nuclear materials couriers, it did not designate them as law
enforcement officers. Fritts v. Dept. of Homeland Security,
#AT-0842-05-0529-I-1, 2006 MSPB 160 (MSPB 2006). {N/R}
City of San Diego agrees to settle a lawsuit
alleging underfunding of its municipal pension plan. City to add $173 million
into the system over the next five years. McGuigan v. San Diego, #GIC 849883,
44 (2162) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 657 (Cal. Super. 2006). {N/R}
Indiana holds that a mandatory retirement age
still applies to employees who were enrolled in a five-year DROP program. City
of Gary v. Mitchell, #45A03-0504-CV-192, 843 N.E.2d 929, 2006 Ind. App. Lexis
409 (2006). [2006 FP Jun]
Second Circuit rules that former New York City
Transit employees are not entitled to lifetime health benefits under a plan
sponsored by their union; the retirees lacked a vested right to such benefits.
Silence in a health plan cannot be read as a promise that retiree benefits have
vested. Bouboulis v. TWUA, #04-4241, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 6120 (2d Cir. 2006).
{N/R}
Pennsylvania appellate court holds that a
municipality cannot pass an ordinance that lessens the benefits of retired
police officers, which benefits were earned in conformity with a valid
collective bargaining agreement. Wilkes-Barre Twp. v. Penn. Lab. Rel. Bd., #
2648 C.D. 2004, 878 A.2d 977, 2005 Pa. Commw. Lexis 358, 178 LRRM (BNA) 2859
(2005). {N/R}
Federal court upholds a proposed EEOC Regulation
[68 (134) Fed. Reg. 41542-49] that will allow employers to provide retirees 65
and older with health benefits that are inferior to the benefits given to
younger retirees. AARP v. EEOC, #05-CV-509, 390 F.Supp.2d 437, 96 FEPCases
(BNA) 994, 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 21495 (E.D.Pa. 2005), relying on language in
National Cable v. Brand X, 125 S.Ct. 2688 (2005). The EEOC notes that rising
health care costs and a larger numbers of workers nearing retirement age
created an incentive for employers to eliminate all health benefits for
retirees. {N/R} New Jersey Benefits Review Task Force Report recommends increasing
the retirement age for public employees, switching from a defined benefit to a
defined contribution plan and requiring participants to pay a larger share of
their health costs. {N/R}
Illinois appellate court holds that a retired
police officer who was convicted for misconduct in office was entitled to a
full refund of his contributions to the police pension fund, without deduction
of the substantial amounts he received prior to the termination of benefits.
Bassett v. Pekin Police Pension Board, 2005 Ill. App. Lexis 1127 (3rd Dist.
2005). {N/R}
ERISA prevents pension plans from denying credit
for pre-ERISA service time accrued prior to a break-in-service; all years of
service must be used when calculating an employee's accrued benefit. DiGiacomo
v. Teamsters Pension Trust Fund, #04-3510, 420 F.3d 220, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis
18154 (3rd Cir. 2005). {N/R}
Federal Court upholds a revised EEOC regulation
allowing employers to reduce or terminate benefits for retired workers. AARP v.
EEOC, #05-CV-509, 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 21495 (E.D.Pa. 2005), repling on
National Cable and Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services,
125 S.Ct. 2688 (2005). [2005 FP Dec]
Arbitrator concludes that a new management
requirement, which was not based on an actuarial study, that police officers
contribute 5% of their wages to the pension plan violates the bargaining
agreement. Bor. of State College, Pa. and State College Police Assn., 121 LA
(BNA) 188, FMCS Case No. 05/51261 (Felice, 2005). {N/R}
New Illinois law penalizes any pension
enhancements caused by balloon salary increases given during a worker's last
year before retirement. S.B. 27, Illinois Pension Code Amendments (2005). [2005
FP Sep]
Armed park ranger was not entitled to a federal
law enforcement officer pension; duties such as maintaining order, protecting
life and property are not the type of law enforcement duties that qualify an
employee for LEO service credits under 5 C.F.R. §831.902. Fagergren v. Dept. of
the Interior, #DE-0831-03-0469-I-1, 2005 MSPB Lexis 3240 (MSPB 2005). {N/R}
NYC police sergeants union settles pension
mismanagement lawsuit for $4.75 million. The fund, which benefits 10,000 active
and retired members, fell from a high of $141 million in Mar. 2000 to $96
million in Sep. 2002. Another $29 million is claimed against a codefendant
firm. N.Y.C. Sergeants Benevolent Assn. Annuity Fund v. Trainer Wortham &
Co., N.Y. Law J. 5/31/2005 (Sup. Ct. Manhattan Co. NY 2005). {N/R}
Seventh Circuit holds
that the due process rights of retired officers were not violated when the
county required retired sheriff's deputies to pay higher health care premiums
than required by currently employed deputies. Germano v. Winnebago County,
#04-3319, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 6075 (7th Cir. 2005). {N/R}
Eighth Circuit concludes that a state's decision
to fund health insurance programs for some state employees at a different level
than it funds program for others had a rational basis and did not violate the
equal protection or due process clauses. Carter v. State of Arkansas, #04-1017,
2004 U.S. App. Lexis 26265 (8th Cir. 2004). {N/R}
A public employee benefit plan using public funds
is not subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA),
88 Stat. 829. Gualandi v. Adams, #02-7809, 385 F.3d 236, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis
20620 (2d Cir. 2004). {N/R}
Supreme Court holds that employers cannot reduce
pensions for workers who retire early and then go to work somewhere else. In a
unanimous ruling the justices held that ERISA [29 U.S. Code §1053(a)(3)(B)]
protects against lowered benefits that take effect after a worker has retired
-- in this case, the plaintiffs "retired" at age 39. Central
Laborers' Pension Fund v. Heinz, #02-891, 2004 U.S. Lexis 4028 (2004). {N/R}
Employers will be able to reduce or eliminate
retired workers' health benefits after they qualify for Medicare, under a
revised Rule of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Age
Discrimination in Employment Act -- Retiree Health Benefits, 68 (134) Fed. Reg.
41542 (July 14, 2003). [2004 FP Jun]
California appellate court concludes that a
payment for accumulated sick leave is not part of a public employee's
"final compensation" under Government Code 31461 and 31461.2 and
should not be included when calculating retirement benefits. Salus v. San Diego
Co. Emplees. Assn., #D041608, 2004 Cal. App. Lexis 478 (4th Dist. 2004). {N/R}
Pension fund was not obligated to reinstate the
retirement benefits of a police officer who was convicted of lying to a grand
jury, and later was pardoned by President Clinton. The claimant forfeited all
rights and property interest when he elected to receive a refund of his pension
contributions. Yasak v. Ret. Bd. of Policemen's Benefit, #03-1733, 2004 U.S.
App. Lexis 1661 (7th Cir. 2004). {N/R}
Effective in June 2003, federal agencies now have
the option of offering voluntary early retirement to employees for the purposes
of restructuring or downsizing under guidance issued by the U.S. Office of
Personnel Management. "Voluntary Early Retirement Under the Homeland
Security Act of 2002," 68 (114) Fed. Reg. 35270 (6/13/03).
Governor of New York (George Pataki, Rep.) has
approved Assembly Bill 8352 which will reduce state and local government
pension costs by $1.6 billion in the current fiscal year; it restructures the
way public employers make contributions to the state's retirement fund. {N/R}
A Norfolk naval base police officer was not a law
enforcement officer under 5 U.S. Code §8336(c)(1), and was not entitled to
enhanced retirement benefits. Koenig v. Dept. of the Navy, #02-3126, 315 F.3d
1378, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 629 (Fed Cir. 2003). Also see Watson v. Dept. of the
Navy, 262 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2001). {N/R}
Pennsylvania appellate court holds that
detectives employed by district attorneys are not members of a police force for
early retirement purposes. Allegheny Co. Detectives Assn. v. Allegheny Co. Retirement
Bd., #188 C.D. 2002, 804 A.2d 1285, 2002 Pa. Commw. Lexis 666 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2002). {N/R}
California reserve police officer, who received
minimum wage rate and served 1 or 2 days per month for 27 years, was not
"honorably retired" to qualify for the right to carry a concealed
firearm on retirement. Haas v. Meisner, 2002 Cal. App. Lexis 4933 (4th Dist.
2002). {N/R}
Although a 1989 divorce decree provided that a
public employee's first wife would receive 60 percent of his retirement benefits,
his surviving second spouse was the statutory beneficiary of all of his
survivor benefits, and the courts were powerless to apportion those benefits.
Cosby v. Cosby, #2001-0659, 96 Ohio St.3d 228, 2002 Ohio 4170, 773 N.E.2d 516,
2002 Ohio Lexis 1997 (2002). {N/R}
Merit Systems
Protection Board holds that U.S. Navy police officers at the Norfolk Naval
Shipyard were not entitled to law enforcement officer retirements. Street v.
Dept. of the Navy, #DC-0842-00-0210-I-1, 2002 MSPB Lexis 41 (MSPB 2002). [N/R]
Federal appeals court upholds a one-year
limitation of the Navy's law enforcement retirement credit, 5 C.F.R.
§831.906(e-f). Stearn v. Dept. of the Navy, #01-3013, 280 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir.
2002). [N/R]
The Supreme Court has declined to review a Court
of Appeals holding that U.S. Navy base police officers were entitled to the
early retirement privileges as other federal LEOs. Watson v. Dept. of Navy,
#01-725, 122 S.Ct. 817, 2002 U.S. Lexis 279 (cert. denied 2002); appellate
decision at 262 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2001). [N/R]
The fact that an employer grants waivers or
treats employees differently does not prove a claim that the employer
administered its plan arbitrarily and capriciously under the ERISA. Mauser v.
Raytheon, #99-1895, 239 F.3d 51, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 1562 (1st Cir.). {N/R}
Illinois appellate court upholds the decision of
a police retirement board to deny a pension because of an officer's felony
conviction for mail fraud. Devoney v. Retirement Bd. of Chicago, #1-99-1383,
321 Ill. App.3d 1, 746 N.E.2d 836, 2001 Ill. App. Lexis 166 (2001). {N/R}
N.J. Supreme Court reinstates medical benefits
for a retired police officer. Although he was not legally entitled to the
benefits, his superiors misunderstood the law at the time he retired and
assured him that he was entitled to medical benefits. Middletown Twp. PBA v.
Twp. of Middletown, #A-116-98, 162 N.J. 361, 744 A.2d 649, 2000 N.J. Lexis 23.
[2000 FP 91]
A city need not provide its retirees the same
dental benefits obtained by active employees, gained by collective bargaining.
L- 21, Int. Fed. v. San Francisco, 76 Cal. App.4th 213, 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 186,
1999 Cal. App. Lexis 987. {N/R}
Appeals court rejects claim that retired public
employees must receive the same health benefits as active employees. Intl. Fed.
Prof. L-21 v. San Francisco, 76 Cal.App.4th 213, 1999 Cal. App. Lexis 987, 90
Cal.Rptr.2d 186 (1999). [2000 FP 27-8]
U.S. Supreme Court rejects appeal of public
official who lost his pension following a conviction for bribe-taking.
Forfeiture of retirement benefits does not violate the Constitution. Ret. Bd.
v. Azar, 721 A.2d 872, 1998 R.I. Lexis 330; cert. den. #98-1623, 1999 U.S.
Lexis 3298. [1999 FP 108]
Illinois Attorney General rules that a pension
forfeiture law applies to either state or federal crimes. IL A.G. Opin. # 99-
006. www.ag.state.il.us/Opinions/99-006.htm [1999 FP 108]
Massachusetts Supreme Court upholds the
forfeiture of the pension contributions made by a former police officer who
stole an entrance exam for his son. He had conspired to defraud the city of
amounts exceeding the refund due. Doherty v. Retirement Bd. of Medford, 425
Mass. 130, 680 N.E.2d 45 (1997). [1998 FP 106-7]
En banc panel in San Francisco upholds suit to
give pension and other benefits to workers that were hired as "independent
contractors." Status and duties, not labels, determines eligibility for
benefits. Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 1997 U.S. App. Lexis 18869 (9th Cir, en
banc), citing Daughtrey v. Honeywell, Inc., 3 F.3d 1488 (11th Cir. 1993). A
contrary decision is reached by a federal appeals panel in Virginia. Clark v.
E. I. DuPont, 1997 U.S. App. Lexis 321, 20 E.B.C. 2309 (4th Cir.). [1997 FP
136-7]
Federal court invalidates a police pension fund
that treated women different than men because they, as a class, live longer.
Kuhn v. Mun. Police Retir. Sys., 1996 U.S.Dist. Lexis 15362 (E.D.La.). [1997 FP
13-14]
Federal appeals court strikes down a state
statute that denied retirement benefits to public employees hired after they
reached their 65th birthday. EEOC v. Mass., 77 F.3d 572 (1st Cir. 1996). [1996
FP 108]
Appellate court allows terminated employee to
collect accumulated sick leave time because employment handbook did not distinguish
retirement separations as honorable/dishonorable or as voluntary/involuntary.
Dow v. Columbus-Cabrini Medical Ctr., 274 Ill.App.3d 653, 655 N.E.2d 1, 10 IER
Cases (BNA) 1221, 1995 Ill.App. Lexis 425. [1995 FP 155]
Fed. ct. dismisses a disabilities discrimination
suit of a police officer who was denied admission into pension fund and who
brought a suit under the ADA. Rodriguez v. City of Aurora, 887 F.Supp. 162
(N.D.Ill. 1995). {N/R}
Police officer with diabetes was allowed to
proceed with a claim the refusal of a police pension fund to enroll him
violated the ADA. Holmes v. City of Aurora, 1995 WL 21606 (N.D.Ill. 1/18/95).
See also: U.S. v. St. of Illinois, 3 AD Cases 1157 (N.D.Ill. 1994). To settle
all claims, the city council agreed to pay the officers $2,000 to drop his
federal court lawsuit, make a $31,413 payment to the pension plan for the 10
years no money was paid in his behalf, and pay his attorneys $70,000; 8/17/95
Chi. Trib. 2-4. {N/R}
For pension purposes, an employee's age is that
age stated on the employment application; proof of a different age cannot be
later raised to increase one's benefits. Glynn v. Retir. Bd., 635 N.E.2d 823
(Ill.App. 1994). {N/R}
Illinois allows a police officer, under a 25 year
sentence for murder, to collect his retirement pension. Crime was not committed
while on duty. Cullen v. Retirement Bd. of Chicago, 1995 Ill.App. Lexis 173.
[1995 FP 75-6]
Congress amends Social Security Act to allow full
participation by firefighters and police officers. Social Security Independence
Act of 1994, 42 U.S. Code Sec. 418. [1995 FP 28]
Changes in retirement laws designed to encourage
present and future employees to remain in service longer may have prospective
application; retroactivity would not promote the purpose of such amendments.
Arkansas Fire & Police Pension Bd. v. Stephens, 832 S.W.2d 239 (Ark. 1992).
[1993 FP 28]
Florida rules that unused vacation and sick leave
are not “salary and wages” for purposes of calculating retirement benefits. Miami
Beach Police & Firemen v. Bd. of Trustees, 581 So.2d 229 (Fla.App. 1991).
[1992 FP 108]
Employer's pension plan is not legally required
to increase benefits of employees who voluntarily work past their normal
retirement age. Atkins v. Northwest Airlines, 59 FEP Cases (BNA) 227 (8th Cir.
1992). [1992 FP 141-2]
Pension funds could decline to cover a diabetic
police officer. Holmes v. Ill. Munic. Retir. Fund, 540 N.E.2d 1122 (Ill.App.
1989).
City could amend fire dept. pension plan,
increase benefits, and require firefighters to make retroactive contributions.
Burlington F.F.A. v. City of Burlington, 543 A.2d 686 (Vt. 1988).
Erroneously retired lieutenant entitled to
reinstatement and seniority preference for promotion to captain. Snell v. City
of Shreveport, 514 So.2d 698 (La. App. 1987).
Federal Court upholds state law equalizing
retirement ages of men and women public employees; fact one sex now must work
an extra five years is not unconstitutional. Pineman v. Fallon, 662 F.Supp. 1311
(D. Conn. 1987).
“Equal or better” benefits does not require a
mathematical formula as to which pension plan should prevail. Salem
Firefighters v. Public Employment Retirement Board, 717 P.2d 126 (Ore. 1986).
Retirement bonus pay law repealed; retirees win
suit to reinstate benefits. City of Athens v. McGahee, 341 S.E.2d 855 (Ga. App.
1986).
City could not terminate ex-vice squad
commander's pension because of subsequent conviction. Board of Trustees of
Police Pension v. Weed, 719 P.2d 1276 (Okla. 1986).
City can still collect pension contributions from
those who have reached the maximum benefit level of participation. Caruso v.
City of Omaha, 222 Neb. 257, 383 N.W.2d 41 (1986).
State could change pension laws and reduce
benefits for those who had not yet reached eligibility status, but could not
adversely affect those who retired or could have retired. Baker v. Okla.
Firefighters Pension system, 718 P.2d 348 (Okla. 1986).
Deputy fire chief's pension should be calculated
on the pay rate of his highest civil service rank, not his exempt bank. Braun
v. Retirement Bd. of Firemen's Fund of Chicago, 483 N.E.2d 8 (Ill. 1985).
Michigan retirement pay includes longevity,
holidays, vacations, overtime, shift-differential and cost-of-living; excludes
recall pay, sick leave, life and hospital insurance. Gentile v. City of
Detroit, 362 N.W.2d 848 (Mich. App. 1984).
City could lower retirement benefits for newly
hired fire and police personnel; no equal protection problems. Jackson
Firefighters Assn. Local 87 v. City of Jackson, Miss., 736 F.2d 209 (5th Cir.
1984).
Deputy fire chief, convicted of pay-offs for his
promotion, not entitled to retirement pay based on promotional ranks. Hackett
v. City of New Britain, 2 Conn. App. 225, 477 A.2d 148 (1984).
City can amend pension laws for new employees; no
right to transfer benefits when employees switch departments. San Francisco
Fire Fighters L-798 v. City of San Francisco, 201 Cal.Rptr. 176 (App. 1984).
City can unilaterally require firefighters and
police to increase their pension contributions. Intern. Assn. of Fire Fighters
v. City of San Diego, 667 P.2d 675 (Cal. 1983).
“Salary” for retirement purposes does not include
overtime pay regularly earned. Beaver v. Liston, 464 A.2d 679 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1983).
Employee entitled to higher pension than legally
due if city mistakenly informed him of the amount due if he retired. Kern v.
City of Flint, 335 N.W.2d 708 (Mich. App. 1983).
Disabled employee could switch to ordinary
retirement pension when he reached eligible age. Redding v. Board of Trustees
of Oak Park, 450 N.E.2d 763 (Ill.App. 1983).
Court action in setting aside a felony conviction
does not restore former employee's right to a pension. Ballard v. Board of
Trustees of Police Pension Fund of the City of Evansville, 452 N.E.2d 1023
(Ind.App. 1983).
Local option retirement plans that are “equal” or
better than state plans need no be identical or equal in every provision.
Oregon Fire/Police Retirement Committee v. Oregon Public Employees"
Retirement Board, 671 P.2d 729 (Ore. App. 1983).
"Salary" means base pay, not overtime
and credits, when used for pension deductions and pension benefits. Hill v.
City of Lincoln, 330 N.W.2d 471 (Neb. 1983).
City could not deny firearms permit to disabled
police officer without a hearing and a showing of cause. Monzingo v. City of
Garden Grove, 190 Cal.Rptr. 750 (App. 1983).
Does a police or fire chief or his subordinate
forfeit a pension because of misconduct? New Jersey Supreme Court sets a
precise standard of review. Uricoli v. Bd. of Trustees, Police & Firemen's
Retirement System, 91 N.J. 62, 449 A.2d 1267 (1982).
Ex-wife can require pension board to make
payments directly to her, due under divorce decree. Spadaro v. New York City
Police Pension Service, 454 N.Y.Supp. 374 (Misc. 1982).
Once, again, appellate court upholds rule of no
refunds for personnel that quit before retirement. Holmes v. City of Los
Angeles, 172 Cal.Rptr. 589 (App. 1981).
State retirement system can treat highway patrol
officers and narcotics agents differently; not a denial of equal protection
clause of constitution. Anderson v. Winter, 631 F.2d 1238 (5th Cir. 1980).
State cannot increase pension contributions
without adding to benefits; vested rights impaired. Singer v. City of Topeka,
607 P.2d 467 (Kan. 1980). Retirement pension must include longevity benefits in
determining final salary if increments were included in employee's
contributions. York Paid Firemens Pension Fund Board v. Orendorff, 419 A.2d 232
(Pa. Cmwlth. 1980).
Resigning employees not entitled to refund of
mandatory contributions. Stevens v. Bd. of Trustees of Shreveport, 370 So.2d
528 (La. 1979).
Different retirement benefits for chief not a
violation of equal protection doctrine. City of Winona v. Policeman's Relief
Assn., 281 N.W. 2d 145 (Minn. 1979).
Can the legislature reduce pension benefits?
Alabama Supreme Court sets guidelines. Bd. of Trustees v. Cary, 373 So.2d 841
(Ala. 1979).
Resigning employees not entitled to refund of
withheld pension contributions. Musquiz v. City of San Antonio, 586 F.2d 530
(5th Cir. en banc 1978); 528 F.2d 499 affirmed.
Indiana rules that eligible disabled retirees can
switch to ordinary retirement to receive increased benefits. Bobson v. City of
Mishawaka, 383 N.E.2d 484 (Ind.App. 1978).
State law may treat fire and police personnel
differently from other employees. Bryson v. Utah State Retirement Office, 573
P.2d 1280 (Utah 1978).
Involuntary Retirement discussed. Gardner v.
Nation, 522 P.2d 1281.
Equal Protection discussed. Roth v. Public
Employees Retir. Bd. of Ohio, 336 N.E.2d 448 (Ohio App. 1975).
Statute of Limitations; Collateral Estoppel.
Montagna v. O'Hagan, 402 F.Supp. 178 (E.D. N.Y. 1975).
Separate pension fund sought in suit by Rhode
Island firemen. Montanero et al v. Taft et al, Providence Super. Ct. (R.I.
1974).
See also: Disability
Rights and Pensions; Divorce Proceedings; Sex Discrimination; Sexual
Harassment.