California Supreme Court Grants Review of CAL FIRE Airtime Credit Case

On April 12, 2017, the California Supreme Court granted CAL FIRE Local 2881's petition for review of the First District Court of Appeal's decision on December 20, 2016 to uphold the elimination of the “airtime credit” benefit in the Public Employment Retirement Systems (“PERS”).

The most significant part of the previous decision by the  Court of Appeal for the First District was the court's decision to adopt the ruling in Marin Association of Public Employees v. Marin County Employees’ Retirement Association (MAPE) regarding the authority of the Legislature to reduce retirement benefits if they do not destroy the pension. The MAPE ruling broke with a half century of precedent holding that any modification of a pension resulting in a detriment must include an offsetting advantage.

The California Supreme Court has now granted review of both the MAPE and Cal Fire rulings. This is a significant opportunity to right the ship and overturn the damage these decisions did to the California vested rights doctrine.

Our office is currently representing two law enforcement associations in separate pension-related appeals in the First Appellate District, including the Alameda Deputy Sheriff's Association. 2017 continues to be an important year for determination of pension rights.

First Appellate District Challenges Vested Rights Doctrine in Upholding Elimination of Airtime Credit

In Cal Fire Local 2881 v. California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the Division Three of the First District Court of Appeal upheld the elimination of the “airtime credit” benefit in Public Employment Retirement Systems (“PERS”). Airtime credit was a benefit available to CalPERS and some other PERS programs that allowed members who had already earned five years of service credit, to purchase another five years of “nonqualified retirement service credit.” The record reflected that PERS had been under charging for the benefit.  In 2013, the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (“PEPRA”) was passed in what was billed as an effort to reign in unfunded pension liabilities. One of the provisions of PEPRA eliminated the ability to purchase airtime credit.

The court considered whether the ability to purchase airtime credit was a “vested benefit.” The court started its analysis with a general presumption against the granting of a vested benefit, unless its text or legislative history evidence an intent to be bound. Applying the reasoning in Employees Assn. of Orange County, Inc. v. County of Orange (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1171, the court held “there is nothing in either the text of the statute, or its legislative history, that unambiguously states an intent by the Legislature to create a vested pension benefit. This demonstration of intent, as we explained above, is required by California law.” The court found no such intent with respect to airtime.

Further, the court held no right was destroyed, noting PEPRA provided members with a seven month window to purchase the service credit, and that such applications would be honored if they were submitted prior to December 31, 2012. "Thus, nothing in the revised statutory scheme immediately destroyed plaintiffs’ right to purchase the airtime service credit ... To the extent plaintiffs lost out on the opportunity to purchase the airtime service credit, such loss was, accordingly, a product of their own doing."

The court also held that the elimination of airtime did not destroy any benefit because the cost of airtime was always intended to be borne entirely by the employee.  Because the benefit was established as cost neutral to the employer, "the employees, not the state, paid for this benefit" and therefore the court held "this simply is not a case where the state provided a retirement benefit to its employees in exchange for their work performance, and then took the benefit away."

Most significantly, the court endorsed Division Two of the First District's holdings in Marin Association of Public Employees v. Marin County Employees’ Retirement Association (MAPE) regarding the authority of the Legislature to reduce retirement benefits s long as they do not destroy the pension.  This superfluous basis for upholding the elimination of airtime is striking given that the Supreme Court had granted Review of MAPE.

MAPE broke with a half century of precedent holding that any modification of a pension resulting in a detriment must include an offsetting advantage.  On November 22, 2016, the California Supreme Court issued an order granting review of MAPE, holding, "The petition for review is granted. Further action in this matter is deferred pending the decision of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, in Alameda County Deputy Sheriff's Association et al. v. Alameda County Employees' Retirement Association et al., A141913
 
Although the elimination of airtime is not particularly significant, the court's unnecessary adoption of the MAPE reasoning in the face of Supreme Court review could affect broader legal principles involving the California vested rights doctrine.  Our office currently is representing two law enforcement associations in two separate pension related appeals in the First Appellate District, including the Alameda Deputy Sheriff's Association.  2017 is shaping up to be an important year for determination pension rights.

Mastagni Holstedt, APC Protects Retirement Rights in the Court of Appeal

Mastagni Holstedt, APC filed an amicus brief with the California Second Appellate District, Division One. At issue are adjustable retirement health subsidies under the City of Los Angeles’ retirement system. In 2006, the City of Los Angeles passed an ordinance which allowed the Board of the Los Angeles Fire and Police Pension System to provide an adjustable retirement health subsidy. This adjustable rate would allow the City to increase contributions as costs increased over time.

However, in 2011, the City of Los Angeles passed an ordinance freezing future increases to the subsidy. Los Angeles employee organizations brought suit alleging this violated their vested right to a variable subsidy. The trial court agreed and ordered the City to increase the subsidy pursuant to the 2006 ordinance.

The City appealed the decision arguing it had plenary authority to modify the pension subsidy as it was a type of “employee compensation.” In its brief, Mastagni Holstedt, APC argues a pension subsidy is not salary, but is instead a vested benefit. The California courts have already held on numerous occasions a pension benefit, once vested, cannot be revoked. The California Constitution’s Contracts Clause prohibits such an action. Thus, the City cannot arbitrarily revoke a benefit by reforming it as “employee compensation.”

Mastagni Holstedt, APC thanks the employee organizations who joined the firm in fighting back against the destruction of employee benefits.  Mastagni Holstedt attorneys David E. Mastagni, Isaac S. Stevens, and Ian B. Sangster represent the amici in the matter.

PERB Tackles Vested Rights Issues in Finding Unions Refused to Bargain Over Employee Pension Contributions

On June 3, 2015 in County of San Luis Obispo (2015) PERB Decision No. 2427-M, PERB held two unions unlawfully refused to bargain over employee pension contributions. In reaching this decision, PERB ruled San Luis Obispo's independent retirement system did not provide employees with vested rights for employee contributions. This case demonstrates PERB's willingness to decide vested rights issues, potentially providing labor organizations with an alternative forum to litigate such issues.

The County of San Luis Obispo maintains the San Luis Obispo Pension Trust ("Trust") as its own independent retirement system. The County requested to bargain with two unions over a proposed increase in employee contributions to the retirement system. The unions argued, among other things, that the employee contributions constituted vested contractual rights and the unions could not lawfully bargain over such vested rights. During this time, the unions were litigating cases in superior court over similar issues. If the unions agreed to bargain over employee contribution rates, they risked weakening their position in the pending superior court litigation.

The outcome of the case hinged on whether the Trust provided vested rights regarding certain employee contribution rates. If PERB determined the pension benefits were vested at the current employee contribution rates, the unions would have been within their rights to refuse to bargain over proposed increased contributions for the same fixed level of pension benefit. However, PERB held the current employee contribution rates were not vested and immutable under the Trust's governing documents. PERB determined the Trust's language did not show a clear intent to create vested rights in particular contribution rates or benefits. Since the employee contributions were negotiable, PERB ruled the unions unlawfully refused to bargain over the County's proposed changes to the contribution rates.

This case demonstrates PERB's willingness to decide vested rights issues in determining whether a refusal to negotiate pension benefits constitutes an unfair labor practice. Although the County prevailed under the circumstances in County of San Luis Obispo, this case could benefit labor organizations in the future by providing an administrative forum with labor expertise to determine vested rights issues. This decision also shows the danger for labor organizations and employers to refuse to negotiate over proposals where bargaining obligations are unclear.

Court of Appeal: No Vested Rights in Post-Retirement Pension Benefit Enhancements

On March 27, 2015, the California Court of Appeal held employees who retired before certain pension benefit enhancements went into effect did not have vested rights to those benefits. The court's decision in Protect Our Benefits v. City and County of San Francisco held retirees' post-retirement benefit enhancements were exposed to legislative impairment.

Beginning in 1996, retired employees of the City and County of San Francisco ("City") received supplemental cost of living allowances ("supplemental COLA") for their pension benefits when the retirement fund's earnings from the previous year exceeded projected earnings. But in November 2011, voters passed an initiative conditioning payment of the supplemental COLA on the retirement fund being "fully funded."

The court held the initiative improperly impaired vested contractual rights for current City employees and those who retired after the 1996 supplemental COLA went into effect. However, the court upheld the November 2011 initiative for City employees who retired before the 1996 supplemental COLA went into effect because they had no vested rights in the supplemental COLA. Vested pension rights are created at the time the employee provides services for the employer. The pre-1996 retirees' vested rights were limited to the pension benefits in effect at retirement, and they had no vested rights in the post-retirement supplemental COLA enhancements.

California Court of Appeal Strikes Blow to Employee Pension Rights

On January 22, 2015 the California Court of Appeal changed how the Legislature can change pension benefits under a contract.  The Legislature may change current contractual pension benefit formulas for new employees. But, the Legislature may not alter pension contribution requirements under a current contract.

In DeputySheriff’s Association of San Diego County v. County of San Diego the County and Deputy Sherriff's Association had a memorandum of understanding. The contract contained provisions related to pension benefits. The contract's pension formula for members was 3 percent at 55. The contract also required the employer to pay a percentage of the employee’s pension contribution.
 

The California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 went into effect on January 1, 2013. The Act required that new safety members receive less than 3 percent at 55. PEPRA also limits employer contributions. Employers may not cover an employee's required contributions. The DSA argued PEPRA unconstitutionally impaired the contract terms. If a contract is in place then the Legislature cannot alter it until it expires. 
 

The Court of Appeal did not agree with the DSA.  The Court said a benefit vests when the employee begins working under the terms of the contract. Future employees cannot claim a vested benefit until they begin working. Thus, the Legislature could alter the pension benefits for new members.
 

The Court of Appeal also found an impairment of the contributions under the contract. PEPRA's contributions provisions cannot conflict with current contract terms. PEPRA as applied here would change the terms of the agreement.  Therefore, PEPRA would not apply until the agreement expired on June 26, 2014.

Supreme Court Addresses Private Sector Vested Rights

On Monday the Supreme Court struck a blow to vested health-care benefit rights under collective-bargaining agreements in the private sector. Previously, courts assumed health-care benefits in a collective-bargaining agreement vested for life absent language to the contrary. This case changes that presumption. Now, health care benefits will not vest for life unless clearly stated in the collective-bargaining agreement. 

The issue in M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett is how health-care benefits vest under a collective-bargaining agreement. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said health-care benefits are vested unless the collective-bargaining agreement say they are not. This presumption protects the vested benefit right.

The Supreme Court reversed that presumption. The Court said the presumption had no basis in contract law. Thus, when a contract is silent as to the duration of benefits, a court may not infer that the parties intended for those benefits to vest for life. The Court did not reinterpret the contract.  Instead, it asked the Sixth Circuit to review the case under “ordinary principals of contract law.”

This opinion does not reflect California law in the public sector. Article 1, Section 9 of the California Constitution prohibits the legislature from passing a law which impairs the obligation of contracts. The California Supreme Court has clearly stated that once a public employee accepts employment and works for an employer, the employee’s rights are protected by the Contract Clause. (White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4th 528, 566.) Among these protected rights are vested pension rights. (Betts v. Board of Administration of Public Employees’ Retirement System, (1978) 21 Cal.3d 859, 863.)

Additionally, this ruling does not change the presumption in California that a public employee’s right to health benefits may be based on the implied terms of a collective bargaining agreement. (Retired Employees Association of Orange County, Inc. v. County of Orange (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1171.) However, an implied right to health-care benefits will only be inferred if there is a clear basis in the contract or convincing extrinsic evidence supporting the vested right.

Illinois Supreme Court: Pensions Protected By State Constitution

In Kanerva v. Weems (July 3, 2014), the Illinois Supreme Court ruled health-insurances subsidies for retired state workers are protected under the Illinois Constitution. The ruling poses a challenge to Illinois’ recent pension reform legislation and may force the State to consider raising revenue rather than cutting benefits.

Recently, the State attempted to reform the pension system by imposing healthcare insurance premiums on its retired workers, reducing cost-of-living increases for pensions, raising retirement ages, and limiting the salaries on which pensions are based. Retirees challenged a recent amendment to the State Employees Group Insurance Act, arguing it violated pension protection clause of the Illinois Constitution. The high court agreed, finding the pension protection clause applies to an Illinois public employer’s obligation to contribute to the cost of health care benefits for employees covered by one of the state retirement systems.

In a similar case, David E. Mastagni and Isaac S. Stevens, obtained a decision in the Los Angeles County Superior Court for the Los Angeles City Attorneys’ Association (LACAA). They argued the City of Los Angeles’ freeze ordinance, which capped retiree medical premiums at $1,190 with no increases, unconstitutionally impaired a contractual obligation to LACAA’s members because a maximum medical plan premium subsidy is a vested right. The court agreed, finding the freeze ordinance was an impairment of a vested right to a substantial or reasonable benefit and issued a writ of mandate directing the City to compute and provide the health insurance premium to LACAA’s members without regard to the City’s freeze ordinance.

9th Circuit: Pooling Premiums Not a Vested Contract Right

On February 13, 2014, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in Retired Employees Association of Orange County, Inc. v. County of Orange (2/13/2014) 9th Cir. 12-56706. The Retired Employees Association of Orange County (“REAOC”) filed a lawsuit against the County of Orange when the County decided to stop pooling retired and active employee health insurance premiums.

From 1985 to 2007, the County pooled health insurance premium rates for retired and active employees. Pooling the premiums balanced active and retiree rates and helped lower premium costs for retirees.  But on January 1, 2008, the County and various labor unions reached an agreement to reform the County’s health care program. The agreement split the insurance rate pool so active employee health benefit premiums were separate from those of retired employees.  REAOC sued, arguing the County’s longstanding practice of pooling premiums, and the County’s representations to employees regarding that practice, created an implied contract right for employees who retired prior to January 1, 2008.

California law states where a County intended to create a contractual obligation by resolution or ordinance, the contract may include implied terms derived from experience and practice. The California Supreme Court stated vested health benefits can be implied under certain circumstances from a county ordinance or resolution.

REAOC contended the County established a vested right for retirees to have their health benefit premiums pooled in the future by adopting the pooling scheme year after year. However, the Ninth Circuit held the resolutions supported enrollment in County health plans at a specific rate for a given year, but did not create a vested right to have benefit premiums pooled in the future. In other words, the Board’s approval of health premium pooling in years prior, by itself, did not create an ongoing contractual right.

Court: Key Parts of San Jose Measure B Unconsitutional

On December 20, 2013, the Santa Clara County Superior Court overturned the heart of Measure B, San Jose's attack on employees' pensions.  In doing so, the court followed the Monterey and Los Angeles superior court which have overturned similar attacks on employees' vested rights.

The court overturned part of Measure B that shifted financial responsibility for unfunded liabilities from the City to employees.  That section would have dramatically increased employees' contributions into the system.  The court found that employees had a vested right to have the City pay that portion.  As a result, Measure B unconstitutionally impaired their vested rights.

The court also overturned a provision that allowed the City council to suspend retirement Cost-Of-Living-Adjustments (COLAs) by "declaring a fiscal emergency."  COLAs are not always vested rights, but the court found that retirees in this system had a vested right to COLAs.  The court overturned this section, noting it is not enough for a city council to declare an emergency.  Instead, there has to really be an emergency.  Further, an impairment to a vested right on emergency grounds has to be temporary.  Since this section did not require a real emergency and impaired vested rights in a permanent way, the court ruled it was unconstitutional.

The court upheld other portions of Measure B related to disability retirement, supplemental payments to retirees, retiree medical, and wage cuts.  The court also found "that the Measure B sections at issue in this case can proceed as to new employees."

Mastagni Firm Wins Landmark Decision on Vested Rights in Los Angeles

The Mastagni Firm won a landmark decision from the Los Angeles Superior Court invalidating the City of Los Angeles’ attempt to cap employees’ retiree medical benefits.   In an order issued last week, the court held that the cap impaired Deputy City Attorneys’ vested rights to a retiree medical subsidy. The court granted LACAA’s petition for a writ directing the City to compute and provide the health insurance subsidy without regard to the freeze ordinance. The impact of this decision has been estimated at approximately $71,000,000.  The ruling follows the Mastagni Firm’s similar victories in Pacific Grove and Stockton defending employees’ constitutionally protected vested rights against contract impairments.

In 1973, the City enacted a retiree medical premium subsidy to provide its retirees no-cost or low-cost health insurance.  Over the years, the City amended the program to ensure the subsidy kept pace with increases in retiree medical costs. In 2011, the City froze the retiree medical subsidy at $1,190 per month, claiming employees did not have a vested right to increases and that the savings were needed to address the City’s supposed “fiscal emergency.”

The Los Angeles City Attorneys’ Association (“LACAA”) sought a writ of mandate to prevent the City from enforcing the freeze ordinance and requiring the City to set the subsidy without reference to the freeze. The City denied the existence of any vested right, asserting that it had the legislative authority to make whatever changes to retirement benefits it wanted.   

The court ruled the freeze unconstitutionally impaired a vested right to receive the subsidy. The court found that the City’s Administrative Code “evidence[d] a clear legislative intent to create private contractual rights in the provision of a medical subsidy that covers all or part of the cost of an employee’s medical plan.” The court further found the Administrative Code “create[d] a vested right in a medical subsidy that covers part or all of the costs of a medical plan to eligible employees.”  The court rejected the City’s defense, ruling the “reservation of rights” did not defeat the finding.

To survive constitutional scrutiny, any changes in pension benefits must be materially related to the theory of a pension system, and any change that results in disadvantages to the affected employees must be accompanied by comparable new advantages.

The court found that the freeze resulted in a disadvantage to LACAA’s members because “a fixed benefit system is disadvantageous when compared to fluctuating or fluid benefit system.”  The court then found the freeze ordinance “merely establishes a disadvantage – a frozen subsidy amount of $1,190 – and fails to establish any comparable new advantages.” Rejecting the City’s claim that the disadvantages resulting from the freeze ordinance were offset by the subsidy the City created for employees whose unions agreed to increase their pension contributions, the court noted that “getting the same benefit as before, at the expense of contributing an extra 4%, hardly constitutes a comparable new advantage.”

The court further found that the freeze ordinance was not materially related to the theory of the pension system.  According to the court, “because the apparent goal of the freeze ordinance is to resolve the City’s pending fiscal emergency, the ordinance is not materially related to the theory of a pension/medical subsidy system and its operation.” The court was also troubled that the freeze was not a temporary measure, stating “it is a permanent and progressively more onerous impairment of a vested right to a medical premium subsidy.”

The court affirmed that retirement benefits are constitutionally protected, and cannot be impaired to address fiscal woes.  In these difficult economic times, employee organizations must be vigilant in protecting the benefits their members earned through years of public service. We strongly urge every employee organization to promptly consult qualified legal counsel to determine the legality of any attempt to cut employees’ retirement benefits.

The Los Angeles City Attorneys' Association is the exclusive employee organization representing over 400 attorneys in the City of Los Angeles’ Office of the City Attorney.  Mastagni attorneys David E. Mastagni and Isaac S. Stevens represented LACAA in this litigation.

Court Issues Injunction, Statement of Decision Affirming Constitutional Protection For Pensions

In May, the Monterey Superior Court overturned a voter initiative that tried to impair police officers' pensions.  The judge in that case, Pacific Grove Police Officers Association et al. v. City of Pacific Grove, has now issued a permanent injunction and statement of decision.  The injunction prohibits the city from "taking any action to implement, enforce, or give any effect" to the initiative.

The statement of decision explains the Court's ruling.  The Court explained the initiative violated the California Constitution by capping the City's contribution toward police officers' pensions.  "The employees were told that they were to receive retirement benefits under a CalPERS administered plan with an employee cost set at a fixed percentage of their salary.  The fluctuating portion would be borne by the employer."  The City violated the constitutional prohibition on impairment of contracts by effectively flipping those roles.

The Court stressed employees' vested rights.  The Court said, "the Court reiterates that what is vested in the employee is the right to earn a pension on the terms promised to him or her upon employment."  As a result, "no subsequent legislation by the city, whether by Charter amendment, ordinance, or Council resolution, or voter initiative, can take these rights away once given..."

The Court also explained officers' pensions could not be decided by initiative and therefore the "Citizen's Initiative is invalid because it delegates the responsibility of the ultimate decision for fixing compensation to the voters."  The Court said under the city's Charter, which mirrored the general law, the city council had to set all compensation.

The Pacific Grove Police Officers Association and Police Management Association were represented by Mastagni Law attorney Jeffrey R. A. Edwards in the matter.

Court Rules Pension Impairments Unconstitutional Under Contract Clause

In a major ruling with statewide implications, the Monterey Superior Court ruled Friday that the City of Pacific Grove’s 2010 voter initiative and charter amendment capping the City’s contributions to CalPERS are unconstitutional. The Court’s ruling follows a challenge to the measures brought by the Pacific Grove Police Officers Association and Pacific Grove Police Management Association and supported by PORAC LDF. The Court also ruled that the measures violated the City Charter and the general law because voters cannot set employee compensation by initiative.

According to Pacific Grove Police Officers Association President Jeff Fenton, “Today’s ruling is about fairness. We went to court to ensure the City keeps the promises it made to employees and today the court said they have to.” The Court struck down the ordinance and charter amendment because they violate the Contract Clause of the California Constitution. The Contract Clause requires local governments to keep the promises they make to public employees. It also forbids them from impairing contracts with labor associations.

The case has major implications statewide because it establishes that cities and counties can’t go back on the pension promises they made to employees.  PORAC LDF contributed significant resources toward the police officers’ efforts. “We are deeply thankful for the help from our brothers and sisters in the law enforcement community and PORAC LDF toward achieving this victory,” Fenton said.

The Pacific Grove Police Officers Association and Police Management Association were represented by Mastagni Law attorney Jeffrey R. A. Edwards in the matter.

California Court Uphold Employees' Right To Vacation Pay On Termination

California Labor Code section 227.3 requires employers immediately pay a terminated employee for all his vested vacation time. In Howard Choate et al., v. Celite Corporation (May 2, 2013) B239160, the Court of Appeal decided the right provided in section 227.3 can only be waived if a negotiated collective bargaining agreement clearly and unmistakably waves that right.

Under their collective bargaining agreement, Plaintiffs in Howard earned their vacation based on hours worked the previous year and there was no waiver of section 227.3. However here was no past practice of paying out next year’s vacation time. Until the lawsuit, neither the terminated employees nor their union had objected to this practice. The court found the parties' past practice of not enforcing the vacation rule did not count as a clear and unmistakable waver of section 227.3. Therefore, the Court said the Plaintiffs were entitled to be paid for time earned. However, the court did not grant special penalties to Plaintiffs because it said the employer did not act “willfully”.

Court Rules City Employee Has Vested Right to Sick Leave Cashout

In Lorie Deisenroth v. City of San Jose, the Santa Clara County Superior Court ruled an employee had a vested right to sick leave cashout once she retired and therefore "the City could not unilaterally eliminate her right to a payout for sick leave hours."

The City claimed it could change the rules for sick leave cashout after the employee banked the sick leave hours because ti hadn't paid the cashout yet.  The Court rejected that claim, deciding the right to a sick leave cashout vested after 15 years of service under the employee's MOU, even though the cash out did not mature until the employee retired.  The Court explained "the 'vesting' of a benefit must be distinguished from the 'maturing' of those benefits, which occurs after the conditions precedent to the payment of the benefits have taken place..."  As a result, the Court found that sick leave cashout is a form of deferred compensation and retroactive revocation of that right would be unjust and inequitable.