Case Title: Scott v. Williams

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC12-520

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2013-01-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC12-520 
____________ 
 
RICK SCOTT, et al.,  
Appellants, 
 
vs. 
 
GEORGE WILLIAMS, et al.,  
Appellees. 
 
[January 17, 2013] 
 
LABARGA, J. 
 
Appellants Governor Rick Scott, Attorney General Pamela Jo Bondi, and 
Chief Financial Officer Jeff Atwater, in their capacity as the State Board of 
Administration of Florida, and John Miles, Secretary of the Department of 
Management Services of Florida, appealed a judgment of the Circuit Court of the 
Second Judicial Circuit in and for Leon County to the First District Court of 
Appeal, which certified to this Court that the appeal is one presenting issues of 
great public importance that require immediate resolution by this Court.  We have 
jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(5), Fla. Const.   
 
- 2 - 
In this case, we consider the constitutionality of certain provisions of chapter 
2011-68, Laws of Florida, enacting Senate Bill 2100, which as of July 1, 2011, 
converted the Florida Retirement System (FRS) from noncontributory by 
employees to contributory, required all current FRS members to contribute 3% of 
their salaries to the retirement system, and eliminated the retirement cost-of-living 
adjustment for creditable service after the effective date of the act.1
                                         
 
1.  According to the Department of Management Services Division of 
Retirement “Participating Employers 2011” publication contained in the record 
below, those employers participating in the FRS in 2011 included: 55 state 
agencies; 396 county agencies; 67 school boards; 28 community colleges; 185 
cities, 6 independent hospitals, 243 special districts (these last three categories 
include the 26 cities, 5 independent hospitals, and 12 independent districts that are 
closed to new members as of January 1, 1996); and 12 other public employers not 
specifically designated.  
  The circuit 
court held that these amendments violated three separate provisions of the Florida 
Constitution—article I, section 10, which prohibits laws impairing the obligation 
of contracts; article X, section 6, which provides that no private property shall be 
taken except for a public purpose and with full compensation paid therefor; and 
article I, section 6, providing that the right of public employees to bargain 
collectively shall not be denied or abridged.  Based on these rulings, the circuit 
court held the challenged amendments to be unconstitutional and ordered the 
appellants to reimburse, with interest, all funds deducted or withheld pursuant to 
 
- 3 - 
the challenged provisions from the compensation or cost-of-living adjustments of 
employees who were members of the FRS prior to July 1, 2011.  
The appellants and supporting amici (for ease of reference collectively 
referred to herein as “the State”) contend on appeal, as they did in the circuit court, 
that the laws are facially constitutional.2
BACKGROUND 
  For the reasons explained below, we 
agree with the State and reverse the judgment of the circuit court based on our 
conclusion that the Legislature did not violate the Florida Constitution in enacting 
the challenged provisions of chapter 2011-68, Laws of Florida. 
 
We begin with an overview of the challenged provisions of chapter 2011-68, 
Laws of Florida.  Since 1975, until the July 1, 2011, effective date of the 
amendments at issue here, the FRS was noncontributory for most state and local 
employee members, meaning that the plan was funded entirely by public employer 
contributions.  Further, prior to the 2011 amendments, the FRS plan provided for 
                                         
 
2.  The parties, intervenors, and amici curiae are numerous.  In addition to 
appellants Governor Rick Scott, Attorney General Pamela Jo Bondi, and Chief 
Financial Officer Jeff Atwater, in their capacity as the State Board of 
Administration of Florida, John Miles, Secretary of the Department of 
Management Services of Florida, and appellee George Williams, the other 
appellees, intervenors, and amici curiae consist of a large number of state and local 
employees, various unions and employee organizations, the Florida Senate and the 
Florida House, the Florida Association of Counties, the Florida League of Cities, 
Florida TaxWatch Research Institute, Inc., and the National Conference on Public 
Employees Retirement Systems. 
 
- 4 - 
retired members to receive a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) equal to 3% of the 
total monthly benefit, which was calculated once yearly.  The plaintiffs and 
intervenors below challenged two facets of the 2011 pension amendments—the 
amendments contained in sections 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 24, 26, 29, 32, 33, 39, and 40 of 
chapter 2011-68, Laws of Florida, requiring current state and local members of the 
FRS to pay 3% of their gross compensation into the pension plan, and the 
amendment contained in section 17 of chapter 2011-68, Laws of Florida, 
eliminating COLA adjustments for service performed by FRS members after 
June 30, 2011.3
The circuit court decided the case on cross motions for summary judgment 
based on a stipulation that there were no material facts in dispute.  The facts that 
   
                                         
 
3.  The amendment contained in section 17 of chapter 2011-68, Laws of 
Florida, completely eliminated the COLA for all service performed after the 
effective date of the act.  For employees who were members of the FRS prior to 
July 1, 2011, their COLA will be calculated as follows:  The COLA factor “shall 
equal the product of 3 percent multiplied by the quotient of the sum of the 
member’s service credit earned for service before July 1, 2011, divided by the sum 
of the member’s total service credit earned.”  Ch. 2011-68, § 17, at 1053, Laws of 
Fla., amending section 121.101(4)(c), Florida Statutes.  However, under the 2011 
amendments, “[s]ubject to the availability of funding and the Legislature enacting 
sufficient employer contributions specifically for the purpose of funding the 
expiration of the cost-of-living adjustment specified in subsection (4), in 
accordance with s. 14, Art. X of the State Constitution, the cost-of-living 
adjustment formula provided for in subsection (4) shall expire effective June 30, 
2016, and the benefit of each retiree and annuitant shall be adjusted on each July 1 
thereafter, as provided in subsection (3).”  See id.  Section 121.101(3), as amended 
in 2011, continues to provide a 3% cost-of-living adjustment to those persons who 
retired prior to July 1, 2011. 
 
- 5 - 
the circuit court relied on included the fact that “the FRS has been operating well 
above the 80% funding ratio recommended by experts” and “according to the State 
Board of Administration, which is responsible for investing funds deposited in the 
FRS, the FRS is one of the ‘most well-funded and healthiest public pension funds 
in the United States.’ ”  The court’s order also recognized the following undisputed 
facts: “Florida faced a budget shortfall of $3.6 billion at the start of the 2011 
legislative session.  The legislature calculated the savings to be achieved from the 
challenged portions of Senate Bill 2100 to be approximately $861 million.  There 
was also record evidence, unrebutted, that the legislature’s appropriations for 
2011-2012 left nearly $1.2 billion in general revenue unspent for the year.”  The 
trial court also noted the fact that the amendments significantly reduced the 
employer contributions to the FRS and that the amendments were not enacted to 
make the FRS actuarially sound but were intended to respond to the State’s 
projected budget shortfall. 
With this factual backdrop, and relying primarily on the language contained 
in section 121.011(3)(d), Florida Statutes (1974), a provision known as the 
“preservation of rights” statute, the circuit court held that the rights of the members 
of the FRS to the noncontributory retirement plan with a COLA, which was in 
effect prior to the amendments, were contractual in nature, that they were legally 
enforceable as valid contract rights, and could not be abridged in any way.  The 
 
- 6 - 
preservation of rights section, enacted in 1974 at the same time that the FRS was 
amended to be noncontributory for most public employees, provided then and 
continues to provide now as follows: 
(3) PRESERVATION OF RIGHTS.— 
. . . . 
(d) The rights of members of the retirement system established 
by this chapter shall not be impaired by virtue of the conversion of the 
Florida Retirement System to an employee noncontributory system. 
As of July 1, 1974, the rights of members of the retirement system 
established by this chapter are declared to be of a contractual nature, 
entered into between the member and the state, and such rights shall 
be legally enforceable as valid contract rights and shall not be 
abridged in any way. 
 
See § 121.011(3)(d), Fla. Stat. (1974); § 121.011(3)(d), Fla. Stat. (2012); ch. 
74-302, § 1, at 937, Laws of Fla.  The circuit court held that the Legislature 
substantially breached the employees’ contract rights guaranteed by the 
preservation of rights statute by requiring employee contributions to the FRS and 
by elimination of the COLA, and further held that this breach was not justified by 
the existence of a significant budget shortfall where other, reasonable alternatives 
existed to preserve the State’s contract with FRS members.   
 
In so ruling, the circuit court acknowledged this Court’s 1981 decision in 
Florida Sheriffs Ass’n v. Department of Administration, 408 So. 2d 1033, 1037 
(Fla. 1981), in which we held that the preservation of rights statute “vest[ed] all 
rights and benefits already earned under the present retirement plan” but did not 
preclude the Legislature from altering benefits prospectively for future state 
 
- 7 - 
service in the existing noncontributory plan.  However, the circuit court concluded 
that the Florida Sheriffs decision did not allow the Legislature to “completely gut 
and create a new form of pension plan.”  Finally, the circuit court concluded that 
the challenged portions of chapter 2011-68, Laws of Florida, also effected an 
unconstitutional taking of private property without full compensation and abridged 
the rights of public employees to bargain collectively over conditions of 
employment, to wit, retirement benefits.   
Thus, this case turns on the question of whether the challenged provisions of 
chapter 2011-68, Laws of Florida, violate the contracts clause, the takings clause, 
or the collective bargaining clause of the Florida Constitution.  The State also 
challenges the refund remedy ordered by the trial court.  We turn first to the 
applicable standards of review.    
ANALYSIS 
I. Standards of Review 
 
 
Determination of whether a statute is constitutional is a pure question of law 
which is reviewed de novo.  See Crist v. Ervin, 56 So. 3d 745, 747 (Fla. 2010).  
When the question involves both factual and legal issues, the Court will review a 
trial court’s factual findings for competent, substantial evidence, while the legal 
question is reviewed de novo.  See N. Florida Women’s Health and Counseling 
Serv., Inc. v. State, 866 So. 2d 612, 626-27 (Fla. 2003).  Where there is no genuine 
 
- 8 - 
issue of material fact, this Court’s review of a summary judgment is de novo.  See 
Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 
2000).  Thus, this Court’s review of whether the challenged provisions of chapter 
2011-68, Laws of Florida, when considered in light of the undisputed facts, 
unconstitutionally impair a contract with members of the Florida Retirement 
System, effect an unconstitutional taking from the members, or abridge the right of 
public employees to collectively bargain will be de novo.  See also State v. Sigler, 
967 So. 2d 835, 841 (Fla. 2007) (reviewing de novo the application of the statute to 
facts of the case to determine if the statute is constitutional).  
 
We are ever mindful that “[w]hile we review decisions striking state statutes 
de novo, we are obligated to accord legislative acts a presumption of 
constitutionality and to construe challenged legislation to effect a constitutional 
outcome whenever possible.”  Fla. Dep’t of Revenue v. Howard, 916 So. 2d 640, 
642 (Fla. 2005).  Statutes come to the Court “clothed with a presumption of 
constitutionality and must be construed whenever possible to effect a constitutional 
outcome.”  Crist v. Fla. Ass’n of Criminal Def. Lawyers, Inc., 978 So. 2d 134, 139 
(Fla. 2008).  “Absent a constitutional limitation, the Legislature’s ‘discretion 
reasonably exercised is the sole brake on the enactment of legislation.’ ”  Id. at 
141 (quoting Bush v. Holmes, 919 So. 2d 392, 406 (Fla. 2006) (quoting State v. 
Bd. of Pub. Instruction for Dade County, 170 So. 602, 606 (1936))).  “[E]very 
 
- 9 - 
reasonable doubt should be resolved in favor of a law’s constitutionality.”  
Franklin v. State, 887 So. 2d 1063, 1080 (Fla. 2004).  We note, however, that 
“pension statutes are to be liberally construed in favor of the intended recipients.”  
Bd. of Trustees of Town of Lake Park Firefighters’ Pension Plan v. Town of Lake 
Park, 966 So. 2d 448, 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (citing Greene v. Gray, 87 So. 2d 
504, 507 (Fla. 1956)).   
Further, we have long recognized that “[t]he court should not declare a 
statute to be void or inoperative on the ground that it is opposed to a spirit that is 
supposed to pervade the Constitution, or because the statute is considered unjust or 
unwise or impolitic.”  State ex. rel. Johnson v. Johns, 109 So. 228, 231 (Fla. 1926).  
“The wisdom, policy, or motives which prompt a legislative enactment, so far as 
they do not contravene some portion of the express or implied limitation upon 
legislative power found in the Constitution, are not subject to judicial control.”  
State ex rel. Davis v. Rose, 122 So. 225, 231 (Fla. 1929).  Thus, our ruling today 
expresses no view as to the wisdom, policy, or motives behind the challenged 
statutory provisions. 
Our decision turns in significant part on determining if the contract rights 
granted by the preservation of rights statute, section 121.011(3)(d), include the 
right to a continuing noncontributory retirement plan with a COLA for those 
employees who were members of the FRS prior to July 1, 2011, and whether those 
 
- 10 - 
rights, if any, have been impaired in violation of the Florida Constitution by the 
challenged amendments.  In determining the question of unconstitutional contract 
impairment in Florida, where a contract has been found to exist and to have been 
impaired by subsequent legislation, this Court in Pomponio v. Claridge of 
Pompano Condominium, Inc., 378 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1979), adopted a balancing 
approach to determine if a statute unconstitutionally impairs a contract.  We 
recognized in Pomponio that “virtually no degree of impairment” will be tolerated, 
id. at 780, but “allow[ed] the court to consider the actual effect of the provision on 
the contract and to balance a party’s interest in not having the contract impaired 
against the State’s source of authority and the evil sought to be remedied.”  Florida 
Ins. Guar. Ass’n, Inc. v. Devon Neighborhood Ass’n, Inc., 67 So. 3d 187, 193 n.6 
(Fla. 2011) (citing Pomponio, 378 So. 2d at 780).   
Where, as here, the contract at issue is with a governmental entity, the 
Supreme Court in U.S. Trust Co. of New York v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1 (1977), 
explained: 
As with laws impairing the obligations of private contracts, an 
impairment may be constitutional if it is reasonable and necessary to 
serve an important public purpose.  In applying this standard, 
however, complete deference to a legislative assessment of 
reasonableness and necessity is not appropriate because the State’s 
self-interest is at stake.  A governmental entity can always find a use 
for extra money, especially when taxes do not have to be raised.  If a 
State could reduce its financial obligations whenever it wanted to 
spend the money for what it regarded as an important public purpose, 
the Contract Clause would provide no protection at all. 
 
- 11 - 
Id. at 25-26 (emphasis added; footnote omitted).  “[A] State is not completely free 
to consider impairing the obligations of its own contracts on a par with other policy 
alternatives” and “is not free to impose a drastic impairment when an evident and 
more moderate course would serve its purposes equally well.”  Id. at 30-31.  The 
government’s significant impairment of its own contract is not justified by 
necessity if “the State[] could have adopted alternative means” of achieving its  
goals without altering the contract rights.  See id. at 30.   
With these principles in mind, we turn next to the question of whether the 
2011 amendments unconstitutionally impair the contract rights of existing 
members of the Florida Retirement System.  We then discuss whether the 
amendments effect an unconstitutional taking and whether the amendments impair 
constitutionally guaranteed rights to collectively bargain concerning pension 
issues.     
II. Impairment of Contract and Unconstitutional Taking  
The State contends that the 2011 amendments to the FRS operate 
prospectively only and, thus, the trial court’s order finding that the law impairs 
existing contract rights of current members of the FRS is inconsistent with this 
Court’s interpretation of the preservation of rights statute in Florida Sheriffs.  Both 
parties agree that if an existing member of the FRS retired on June 30, 2011, none 
of his or her benefits would be diminished.  Both parties agree that an employee 
 
- 12 - 
continuing on in employment will be required to contribute 3% of his or her gross 
compensation to the FRS in order to receive the same retirement benefit that he or 
she would have expected to receive, absent the amendments, without making any 
contribution.  Further, the amendments provide that upon retirement, any right to a 
COLA is limited to a calculation giving credit only for the employee’s service 
performed prior to July 1, 2011.  It is for these employees who continue on in 
employment after June 30, 2011, that the parties’ characterization of their rights 
and benefits diverge.   
The State contends that because the 3% contribution requirement and the 
elimination of the COLA did not take effect until July 1, 2011, and did not 
diminish any benefits earned as of that date, the amendments were purely 
prospective.  The appellees and supporting amici (referred to hereafter as “the 
challengers”) contend that the employees’ contractual right to have their retirement 
benefits calculated under the law in effect prior to July 1, 2011, vested pursuant to 
the preservation of rights statute upon commencement of their employment and 
that those rights are now impaired by the amendments.  It is contended, without 
dispute, that even though the actual changes in the plan occur at a future date, the 
changes diminish the total expected retirement benefits that could have accrued 
over the entire projected life of a member’s employment for those persons 
employed prior to the amendments who continue their employment after the 
 
- 13 - 
amendments.  Thus, the challengers contend, the rights to a noncontributory plan 
and to a continuing COLA were part of the contract established under section 
121.011, Florida Statutes (1974), as it has been continually enacted, and are rights 
to be honored over the life of their employment with the State. 
 
The trial court agreed with the challengers that the rights to a 
noncontributory plan and a continuing COLA based on all years worked, both pre-
amendment and post-amendment, are rights that were contractually guaranteed 
upon commencement of employment and could not be altered for any portion of 
the member’s employment without impairing that contract.  Although the trial 
court also recognized that this Court’s decision in Florida Sheriffs authorized 
prospective amendments to the retirement plan, the court found that it did so only 
within the context of the existing noncontributory plan.  Therefore, a review of our 
decision in Florida Sheriffs is necessary for our determination of these issues.     
 
In Florida Sheriffs, special-risk law enforcement members of the FRS filed 
suit challenging the constitutionality of sections 121.091(1)(a) and (11), Florida 
Statutes (1979).  See 408 So. 2d at 1034.  Those provisions reduced, prospectively, 
the special-risk credit that the members would earn toward retirement from 3% to 
2%.  The plaintiffs in Florida Sheriffs contended that the Legislature was 
contractually bound to the three percent credit by its prior enactment of the 
preservation of rights provision in section 121.011(3)(d), Florida Statutes (1974).  
 
- 14 - 
They characterized the preservation of rights statute as elevating Florida’s 
retirement system to a binding contractual relationship between employees and the 
State, thereby contractually barring the State from reducing the special-risk credit 
for those employees.  See id. at 1034-35.   
As noted earlier, the preservation of rights provision contained in section 
121.011(3)(d), provides in pertinent part that “[a]s of July 1, 1974, the rights of 
members of the retirement system established by this chapter are declared to be of 
a contractual nature, entered into between the member and the state, and such 
rights shall be legally enforceable as valid contract rights and shall not be abridged 
in any way.”  § 121.011(3)(d), Fla. Stat.  In deciding Florida Sheriffs, we were 
required to determine the contractual rights which were created by this 
preservation of rights statute.  In order to ascertain the Legislature’s intent in 
enacting that provision, we examined the case law in effect prior to its enactment.  
We first noted in Florida Sheriffs that long before the enactment of the 
preservation of rights statute, this Court had held that Florida’s constitutional 
contracts clause “did not protect a governmental mandatory retirement system and 
that the legislature could modify or alter benefits provided by such a retirement 
plan.”  Id. at 1035 (citing Anders v. Nicholson, 150 So. 639 (1933)).  We also 
discussed the early case of State ex rel. Holton v. City of Tampa, 159 So. 292 (Fla. 
1934), in which this Court held that “even where an employee had already retired, 
 
- 15 - 
the legislature had the authority to reduce the retirement benefits under a 
mandatory plan.”  Florida Sheriffs, 408 So. 2d at 1036 (citing Holton, 159 So. at 
293).  The Holton Court stated: “But except in a case admitting of no other 
construction, a statutory retirement provision will not be construed as a contractual 
limitation binding on the legislative prerogative to fix the amount of retirement pay 
from time to time, so long as entire deprivation is not thereby attempted under the 
guise of regulation of the amount of compensation.”  Holton, 159 So. at 293.     
In our analysis in Florida Sheriffs, we also considered the case of Voorhees 
v. City of Miami, 199 So. 313, 315 (Fla. 1940), where active employees of the City 
of Miami who were entitled to retirement benefits under the City’s mandatory 
retirement act brought an action challenging an amendatory act that repealed the 
original retirement plan and substituted a new one in its place, which was binding 
on all participants in the original pension plan.  We stated in Voorhees that the 
rights of such persons in a pension fund “are not such as will prevent the 
Legislature from repealing or amending the statute, merely because the officer or 
employee has contributed to the fund so long as the fund existed and the law stood 
unrepealed.”  Voorhees, 199 So. at 315 (quoting Holton, 159 So. at 292-93).  Thus, 
we concluded in Florida Sheriffs, “[u]nder the prior case law, if the retirement 
system was mandatory as it is now, the legislature could at any time alter the 
benefits retroactively or prospectively for active employees.”  408 So. 2d at 1037.   
 
- 16 - 
It was against this backdrop of precedent that allowed both prospective and 
retroactive changes to retirement benefits already earned under a mandatory 
retirement plan that the Legislature enacted the preservation of rights statute in 
1974 to expressly create contract rights for existing members of the retirement 
system.  We concluded in Florida Sheriffs that the preservation of rights provision 
“does alter the Anders-Holton rationale for benefits already earned by active 
employees up to the time the legislature changes the law.”  Id. at 1037.  We 
explained: “That rule of law has now been changed by the ‘preservation of rights’ 
section which modifies the Voorhees rule and vests all rights and benefits already 
earned under the present retirement plan so that the legislature may now only alter 
retirement benefits prospectively.”  Florida Sheriffs, 408 So. 2d at 1037 (first 
emphasis added).  Importantly, we cautioned in Florida Sheriffs as follows: 
We stress that the rights provision was not intended to bind 
future legislatures from prospectively altering benefits which accrue 
for future state service.  To hold otherwise would mean that no future 
legislature could in any way alter future benefits of active employees 
for future services, except in a manner favorable to the employee.  
This view would, in effect, impose on the state the permanent 
responsibility for maintaining a retirement plan which could never be 
amended or repealed irrespective of the fiscal condition of this state. 
Such a decision could lead to fiscal irresponsibility.  It would also 
impose on state employees an inflexible plan which would prohibit 
the legislature from modifying the plan in a way that would be 
beneficial to a majority of employees, but would not be beneficial to a 
minority.  Since two different plans cannot exist for the same type of 
employee, the implementation of appellants’ contention would also 
bind the legislature to this plan for future employees.  We find 
appellants’ contention is not in accordance with the intent of the 
 
- 17 - 
legislature and conclude that the legislature has the authority to 
modify or alter prospectively the mandatory, noncontributory 
retirement plan for active state employees. 
 
Florida Sheriffs, 408 So. 2d at 1037 (emphasis added).  It is the import of this last 
statement, recognizing legislative power to modify prospectively “the mandatory, 
noncontributory retirement plan,” that is at the heart of the challengers’ claim.  The 
challengers contend that the reference to “the authority to modify or alter 
prospectively the mandatory, noncontributory retirement plan” means that the 
Legislature may alter features of the plan prospectively, but only within the context 
of it remaining a noncontributory plan.   
 
The trial court in the present case agreed and concluded that Florida Sheriffs 
did not control the question of contractual impairment in the instant case because 
the amendments in this case changed the fundamental nature of the plan from 
noncontributory to contributory.  The trial court concluded:   
While Sheriffs does authorize the legislature to make prospective 
alterations to benefits which accrue for future state service within the 
“mandatory, noncontributory retirement plan,” absolutely nothing in it 
can be read as authorizing the legislature to change the fundamental 
nature of the plan itself. 
 
The challengers and the trial court are incorrect in concluding that we intended our 
decision in Florida Sheriffs to apply only to prospective changes within a 
noncontributory plan.  A reading of the entire decision discloses our conclusion 
that the preservation of rights statute was enacted to give contractual protection to 
 
- 18 - 
those retirement benefits already earned as of the date of any amendments to the 
plan.  We recognized the authority of the Legislature to amend a retirement plan 
prospectively, so long as any benefits tied to service performed prior to the 
amendment date are not lost or impaired.  Moreover, we took special care in 
Florida Sheriffs to emphasize that our construction of the preservation of rights 
statute not be interpreted as binding future legislatures.  The challengers have 
invited this Court to recede from Florida Sheriffs, but we decline to do so.   
 
We again hold, as we did in Florida Sheriffs, that the preservation of rights 
statute was not intended to bind future legislatures from prospectively altering 
benefits for future service performed by all members of the FRS.  We further hold 
that the 2011 amendments requiring a 3% employee contribution as of July 1, 
2011, and continuing thereafter, and the elimination of the COLA for service 
performed after that date are prospective changes within the authority of the 
Legislature to make.  The preservation of rights statute does not create binding 
contract rights for existing employees to future retirement benefits based upon the 
FRS plan that was in place prior to July 1, 2011.  As we held in Florida Sheriffs, 
we again hold that the actions of the Legislature have not impaired any statutorily 
created contract rights and, thus, we reverse the judgment of the trial court on this 
ground.  Further, because we conclude that no contract between the State and 
members of the FRS has been breached, we also reverse the trial court’s judgment 
 
- 19 - 
that a breach of contract effected an unconstitutional taking under article X, section 
6, of the Florida Constitution.4
III. Collective Bargaining 
  We turn next to determine if the challenged 
amendments impair or abridge the rights of public employees to collectively 
bargain that are guaranteed by article I, section 6, of the Florida Constitution. 
 
The challengers contended in the trial court and now on appeal that the 
amendments requiring a 3% salary contribution and elimination of the COLA for 
service performed after June 30, 2011, unconstitutionally impair or abridge the 
right of public employees to bargain collectively on the issue of retirement 
benefits.  The trial court agreed and held that the amendments abridge article I, 
section 6, of the Florida Constitution by effectively removing the subject of 
retirement from the collective bargaining process and rendering negotiations after 
the fact futile.  We make clear at the outset that there is no proper claim before the 
Court in this appeal that the amendments violate any specific collective bargaining 
agreement; the trial court’s order did not address the effect of the amendments on 
any specific collective bargaining agreement.  The issue before that court, and the 
issue now on appeal, is whether the amendments on their face unconstitutionally 
                                         
 
4.  However, we note that an unconstitutional taking may not be presumed 
based solely on a breach of contract.  See, e.g., Connolly v. Pension Ben. Guar. 
Corp., 475 U.S. 211, 224 (1986) ( “[T]he fact that legislation disregards or destroys 
existing contractual rights does not always transform the regulation into an illegal 
taking.”).   
 
- 20 - 
impair or abridge collective bargaining rights by precluding effective bargaining 
on the issue of retirement pensions and benefits.  The trial court was correct that 
retirement pensions and benefits are mandatory subjects of public collective 
bargaining.  See City of Tallahassee v. PERC, 393 So. 2d 1147, 1150 (Fla. 1st 
DCA 1981), aff’d 410 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 1981).  The right to collectively bargain, 
which is guaranteed to both public and private employees in Florida, is set forth in 
article I, section 6, of the Florida Constitution, which states in pertinent part: 
The right of employees, by and through a labor organization, to 
bargain collectively shall not be denied or abridged.  Public 
employees shall not have the right to strike. 
 
Art. I, § 6, Fla. Const.  The trial court concluded that the amendments at issue 
violate this provision. 
 
In its initial brief on appeal, the State contends that “the Order was incorrect 
in stating that the Plan Amendment ‘effectively remov[ed] the subject of retirement 
from the collective bargaining process.’  The Plan Amendment does not remove 
the subject of retirement benefits from collective bargaining.”  (Appellant’s Initial 
Brief at 27-28.)  The State reiterated in its brief that “absolutely nothing precludes 
Plaintiffs from bargaining over FRS” and “the Plan Amendment does not prohibit 
government employees from engaging in collective bargaining over retirement 
benefits.”  (Appellant’s Initial Brief at 25).  We agree.  Nothing in chapter 2011-
68, Laws of Florida, prohibits public employees from collectively bargaining on 
 
- 21 - 
the issue of retirement pensions or benefits.  Nor can we conclude on appeal, in a 
facial challenge to the amendments, that “effective” collective bargaining has been 
abridged or impaired on those issues, or that the amendments render such 
bargaining “futile” as contended by the challengers.  Because we conclude that the 
amendments, on their face, do not prohibit collective bargaining on issues of 
retirement, we do not reach the State’s argument that the Legislature may limit the 
right to collective bargaining on retirement issues based on the principle of 
separation of powers and the Legislature’s exclusive control over public funds.  
See art. VII, §1(c), Fla. Const.5
                                         
 
5.  We agree with the State that in State v. Florida Police Benevolent Ass’n, 
Inc., 613 So. 2d 415, 421 (Fla. 1992), we held that, under its power of 
appropriation, the Legislature could permissibly fail to fund benefits agreed to in a 
collective bargaining agreement.  However, the issue in this case does not involve 
an appropriations act that failed to fund a bargained-for retirement benefit.  The 
issue here is whether the amendments prohibit, or render futile, collective 
bargaining on the issue of retirement in the first instance.  Where the Legislature 
has expressly prohibited collective bargaining, we have held those laws 
unconstitutional.  See, e.g., Chiles v. State Emp. Attorneys Guild, 734 So. 2d 1030, 
1031 (Fla. 1999) (invalidating “a wholesale ban on collective bargaining by 
government lawyers”); City of Tallahassee v. Public Emp. Relations Comm’n, 410 
So. 2d 487, 489 (Fla. 1981) (invalidating statute prohibiting bargaining over 
retirement benefits); Hillsborough Cnty. Governmental Emp. Ass’n, Inc. v. 
Hillsborough Aviation Auth., 522 So. 2d 358, 362 (Fla. 1988) (holding that section 
447.309(3), Florida Statutes (1985), unconstitutionally impaired the constitutional 
right to “effective” collective bargaining because a portion of the statute provided 
that collective bargaining agreements do not become effective unless and until the 
appropriate governmental body makes necessary amendments to its rules and 
ordinances in accord with the agreement).   
   
 
- 22 - 
 
Accordingly, based on the foregoing analysis, we reverse the judgment of 
the trial court in which it held that the challenged amendments impair or abridge 
collective bargaining rights guaranteed to public employees by article I, section 6, 
of the Florida Constitution.   
CONCLUSION 
 
For all the reasons set forth above, we reverse the judgment of the trial court 
in its entirety.  We hold that the challenged provisions, sections 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 17, 
24, 26, 29, 32, 33, 39, and 40 of chapter 2011-68, Laws of Florida, are facially 
constitutional.6
 
It is so ordered. 
 
POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, CANADY, and LABARGA, JJ., concur. 
PARIENTE, J., concurs with an opinion, in which CANADY and LABARGA, JJ., 
concur. 
LEWIS, J., dissents with an opinion. 
PERRY, J., dissents with an opinion, in which LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur. 
 
                                         
 
6.  The following Florida statutes were amended, in pertinent part, by the 
sections of chapter 2011-68, Laws of Florida, held here to be constitutional: 
Section 5 amending § 121.011, Fla. Stat. (2010); section 7 amending § 121.051, 
Fla. Stat. (2010); section 9 amending § 121.052, Fla. Stat. (2010); section 11 
amending § 121.055, Fla. Stat. (2010); section 13 amending § 121.071, Fla. Stat. 
(2010); section 17 amending § 121.101, Fla. Stat. (2010); section 24 amending 
§ 121.35, Fla. Stat. (2010); section 26 amending § 121.4501, Fla. Stat. (2010); 
section 29 amending § 121.571, Fla. Stat. (2010); section 32 amending § 121.70, 
Fla. Stat. (2010); section 33 amending § 121.71, Fla. Stat. (2010); section 39 
amending § 121.78, Fla. Stat. (2010); and section 40 amending § 1012.875, Fla. 
Stat. (2010). 
 
- 23 - 
On the Court’s own motion, any motion for rehearing shall be filed no later 
than January 25, 2013.  See Fla. R. App. P. 9.330(a).  Any response to a 
motion for rehearing must be filed no later than January 30, 2013.  No reply 
to the response shall be permitted.  The provisions of Florida Rule of 
Appellate Procedure 9.420(f) are suspended.  
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
 
PARIENTE, J., concurring. 
 
I fully concur in the majority’s opinion but write separately to emphasize 
several points.  First, although I understand the frustration of State employees, who 
have in effect taken a 3% pay-cut in addition to years without cost-of-living 
adjustments, this case is not about the wisdom or fairness of the Legislature’s 
decision.  Nor is it about the necessity of the Legislature’s action or whether the 
Legislature had reasonable alternatives to accomplish its goal.7
                                         
 
7.  As to the reasonable alternatives, although it does not affect our 
resolution of the issue in this case, I note that the appellees concede that the 
Legislature could have simply reduced the pay of State employees by 3% across 
the board without any constitutional prohibition.  I point this out because I believe 
it highlights that the issue before this Court is not the propriety of the Legislature’s 
policy choice or an assessment of all the options available to the Legislature, but 
simply whether the Legislature’s decision passes constitutional muster. 
  Such 
considerations would become relevant to our analysis only if the Legislature’s 
decision constituted an impairment of contract.  At that point, the inquiry would 
then become whether the impairment is unconstitutional, which is an analysis that 
focuses on the necessity of the legislative action.  Because the majority correctly 
 
- 24 - 
concludes that the changes at issue do not constitute an impairment of contract, 
however, those considerations do not factor into our analysis in this case.  Simply 
put, it is not this Court’s role to question policy decisions made by the Legislature 
unless those decisions infringe on rights guaranteed by either the Florida or United 
States Constitutions.  
 
Second, the result reached by the majority is dictated both by our precedent 
in Florida Sheriffs and by a careful reading of the preservation of rights statute.  
Although Florida Sheriffs does make reference to a “non-contributory” plan in the 
statements of its holding and does not address a change such as this one, its 
rationale clearly applies here.  Prior to the enactment of the preservation of rights 
statute in 1974, the Legislature could make both retroactive and prospective 
changes to a mandatory retirement plan.  See Fla. Sheriffs Ass’n v. Dep’t of 
Admin., Div. of Ret., 408 So. 2d 1033, 1037 (Fla. 1981) (“Under the prior case 
law, if the retirement system was mandatory as it is now, the legislature could at 
any time alter the benefits retroactively or prospectively for active employees.”).  
This Court in Florida Sheriffs concluded that this rule was “changed by the 
‘preservation of rights’ section which . . . vests all rights and benefits already 
earned under the present retirement plan so that the legislature may now only alter 
retirement benefits prospectively.”  Id.  The Court stressed that “the rights 
provision was not intended to bind future legislatures from prospectively altering 
 
- 25 - 
benefits which accrue for future state service.”  Id.  To hold otherwise would 
“impose on the state the permanent responsibility for maintaining a retirement plan 
which could never be amended or repealed irrespective of the fiscal condition of 
this state.”  Id. 
In interpreting the effect of the preservation of rights statute in Florida 
Sheriffs, this Court’s reasoning did not involve drawing the distinction advanced 
by the dissenting opinions with respect to the contributory or noncontributory 
nature of the plan.  Nor did the Court’s analysis distinguish the types or nature of 
changes the Legislature could make prospectively.  In fact, the Court referred to 
the ability to “repeal” the plan prospectively under the preservation of rights 
statute.  Id.  This Court’s decision in Florida Sheriffs is clearly binding here, and to 
hold that the Legislature’s changes constituted an impairment of contract rights 
would require us to recede from Florida Sheriffs. 
 
Finally, even if this Court were to recede from Florida Sheriffs, the 
preservation of rights statute still compels the result reached by the majority.  
There is nothing in the statute that indicates a legislative intent to bind itself for all 
time to preclude future legislatures from ever altering the future benefits to be paid 
to employees as part of the state retirement system.  As correctly held in Florida 
Sheriffs, this interpretation would be contrary to the Legislature’s intent as well as 
the logical meaning of the statute, which is to ensure that the Legislature cannot 
 
- 26 - 
retroactively alter accrued benefits.  This is a critical statutory guarantee that is far 
different from the conclusion that the Legislature intended to bind itself to never 
prospectively alter retirement benefits.   
If this Court were to read the statute to preclude prospective changes such as 
the ones at issue here, then the Legislature would in effect be precluded from 
making any changes to the retirement plan without impairing contracts.  Nothing in 
the statute contains the distinctions urged by the dissents between fundamental and 
non-fundamental changes or between changes that occur “within” the plan or that 
alter the “nature of the plan itself.”  Dissenting op. at 32 (Lewis, J.) (emphasis 
omitted).  Indeed, the Legislature has made numerous prospective changes to the 
retirement system over the years, including the reduction of the special risk credit 
at issue in Florida Sheriffs.  In short, as recognized by Florida Sheriffs, the 
preservation of rights statute accomplished something very important and 
significant for State employees—it precluded the Legislature from making 
retroactive changes to a mandatory retirement system, which were previously 
allowed.  Certainly such a change is not “wholly illusory” as Justice Lewis’s 
dissent contends.  Dissenting op. at 31 (Lewis, J.). 
 
Ultimately, I recognize the frustration of State employees who have in effect 
experienced a 3% reduction in their net pay as a result of the Legislature’s changes 
to the retirement plan.  Indeed, these changes affect judges and all judicial branch 
 
- 27 - 
employees as well.  However, this case is not a referendum on the Legislature’s 
policy decision.  It is not this Court’s role to express any position on that issue.  
Instead, as the majority has ably done, it is this Court’s task to carefully analyze 
and determine whether the Legislature has acted within its constitutional limits.  
Because Florida Sheriffs and the preservation of rights statute necessitate the 
conclusion that the Legislature is not constitutionally prohibited from making 
prospective changes to the mandatory state retirement plan, I believe it is clear that 
the trial court’s judgment must be reversed.  
CANADY and LABARGA, JJ., concur. 
 
 
LEWIS, J., dissenting. 
 
I agree with Justice Perry and, in my view, this case turns in large part on the 
legal effect of section 121.011(3), Florida Statutes (2010).  Section 121.011(3), as 
it existed prior to the amendment that has generated this litigation, provided: 
 
121.011 Florida Retirement System.— 
. . . . 
 
(3) PRESERVATION OF RIGHTS.— 
 
(a) The rights of members of the retirement systems established 
by chapters 122, 238, and 321 shall not be impaired, nor shall their 
benefits be reduced by virtue of any part of this chapter, except that if 
an eligible member of a retirement system established by chapter 122, 
chapter 238, or chapter 321, elects between April 15, 1971, and June 
1, 1971, inclusive, to transfer to the Florida Retirement System, he or 
she shall be transferred to the Florida Retirement System on June 1, 
1971, and shall be subject to the provisions of the Florida Retirement 
 
- 28 - 
System established by this chapter and at retirement have his or her 
benefits calculated in accordance with the provisions of s. 121.091. 
 
(b) The rights of members of any retirement system established 
by local or special act or municipal ordinance shall not be impaired, 
nor shall their benefits be reduced by virtue of any part of this chapter. 
 
. . . . 
 
(d) The rights of members of the retirement system established 
by this chapter shall not be impaired by virtue of the conversion of the 
Florida Retirement System to an employee noncontributory system.  
As of July 1, 1974, the rights of members of the retirement system 
established by this chapter are declared to be of a contractual nature, 
entered into between the member and the state, and such rights shall 
be legally enforceable as valid contract rights and shall not be 
abridged in any way. 
. . . . 
§ 121.011(3) (a), (b) & (d), Fla. Stat. (2010).  Subsection (d) was originally 
enacted in this same form effective October 1, 1974, see ch. 74-302, § 1, at 937, 
Laws of Fla., and has been continually reenacted each year since.  Effective 
January 1, 1975, the FRS was converted to a noncontributory system.  See ch. 74-
302, §§ 4, 13, Laws of Fla.; § 121.071(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1975).  Prior to 2011, 
section 121.071 provided that contributions to the retirement system would be 
made only by the employers and none by the employees.  The statute has meaning 
and must be given effect.  This statutory provision, as with all others, cannot be 
simply ignored.    
It is clear that in 1974, the Legislature changed the FRS to a mandatory, 
noncontributory pension system for most employees and enacted section 
121.011(3)(d), the provision of critical concern.  During the thirty-seven years 
 
- 29 - 
since the adoption of the preservation of rights provision, the FRS has remained 
noncontributory and has provided retirees a cost-of-living adjustment throughout 
retirement.  The foregoing statutory provisions, of legislative origin, create and 
establish contractual rights and obligations with regard to the employment 
relationship of certain workers.  We cannot become involved with the wisdom or 
judgment in establishing these rights just as we do not evaluate the wisdom of 
subsequently enacting statutory provisions that may be in conflict with earlier 
established law.  The quoted statutory provisions are clearly and firmly part of 
Florida law just as any other legislation and we cannot simply ignore the earlier 
statutory rights in favor of later statutes which create conflict.  This conflict 
impacts a significantly important category of Florida workers, our first responders, 
those who provide safety and security for all citizens, those who provide education 
and safety for our children, and thousands of other Floridians who provide 
essential services for all Floridians each and every day.  These governmental 
employees are not second class citizens but are entitled to the full protection of the 
law just as all other Floridians enjoy.  The contractual rights of government 
employees as established in the statute we consider today cannot receive lesser 
protection than other contractual rights because to do so would violate the "rule of 
law" and reduce all to the status of being subject to the whim of those who may be 
in power at any particular time and from time to time.  The interpretation advanced 
 
- 30 - 
by Justice Pariente is certainly without support and contrary to logical analysis.  
Justice Pariente seeks to justify and bolster this approach by suggesting that the 
State may retroactively alter vested rights and change its obligations without 
statutory authority to the contrary.  In my view, this is not supported by Florida or 
federal law in this context.  Justice Pariente’s entire opinion is based on her 
statement that there is no “impairment of contracts” here, a position with which I 
fundamentally and profoundly disagree. 
Senate Bill 2100, which was passed in the 2011 legislative session and 
became effective July 1, 2011, changes the FRS in several pertinent respects, 
although most of the changes affect employees initially enrolled after the effective 
date of the new statute and are not challenged in this action.  Two changes to the 
FRS made by the 2011 amendments that affect employees who were members of 
the FRS prior to the effective date of the enactment were challenged—the 
mandatory 3% contribution and the elimination of cost-of-living adjustment for 
service occurring after July 1, 2011, for preexisting employees.  The legislation 
also decreases the amount employers must contribute to the FRS for the benefit of 
their employees by more than half for nearly every membership class.   
 
The FRS has been operating well above the 80% funding ratio recommended 
by experts and according to the State Board of Administration, which is 
responsible for investing funds deposited in the FRS, the FRS is one of the most 
 
- 31 - 
well-funded and healthiest public pension funds in the United States.  Florida faced 
a serious budget shortfall of approximately $3.6 billion at the start of the 2011 
legislative session.  The Legislature calculated the savings to be achieved from the 
challenged portions of Senate Bill 2100 to be approximately $861 million.  
The unrebutted expert testimony establishes that the fiscal impact on the 
plaintiffs ranges from $12,445.81 to $329,683.56 over the span of their working 
years and retirement if they receive no future raises; and that the elimination of the 
COLA alone will result in a 4% to 24% reduction in the plaintiffs’ total retirement 
income.  Senate Bill 2100 does not provide any increased or improved retirement 
benefits.  There was also record evidence, unrebutted, that the Legislature’s 
appropriations for 2011-2012 left nearly $1.2 billion in general revenue unspent for 
the year.  
Impairment of Contract 
The circuit court concluded as a matter of law, and I agree, that it was 
required to follow the express language of section 121.011(3)(d), which cannot be 
read as allowing the Legislature to redefine established, unconditional contractual 
rights under Chapter 121 as suddenly tied to years of service and thereby altogether 
eliminated in the future.  Such a reading would render the express contract created 
by section 121.011(3)(d) wholly illusory, contrary to the view of Justice Pariente.  
The trial court concluded, and I also agree, that this Court’s decision in Florida 
 
- 32 - 
Sheriffs Ass’n v. Department of Administration, 408 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 1981), 
authorizes the Legislature to make prospective alterations to benefits which accrue 
for future state service within the mandatory, noncontributory plan, but cannot be 
read as authorizing the Legislature to change the fundamental nature of the plan 
itself because the Legislature is precluded by section 121.011(3)(d) from abridging 
in any way the unconditional contractual rights of the plaintiffs.  The trial court 
stated: 
The changes at issue here, a complete change of the plan from 
noncontributory to a contributory plan, and the elimination of 
entitlement to a cost-of-living adjustment, are qualitative changes to 
the plan, not changes to individual components of future accruals 
within the plan.  FRS members have had continuous, unconditional 
rights to a noncontributory plan with a cost-of-living adjustment since 
the inception of FRS; these elements are not related to future state 
service.  Because the Sheriffs case did not reach or contemplate 
changes such as these, this Court is bound to follow the express 
language of section 121.011(3)(d), Florida Statutes.   
 
The trial court concluded, and I agree, that under State v. Gadsden County, 229 So. 
2d 587 (Fla. 1969), the Legislature can, as part of its power to contract, authorize a 
contract which vests rights that a future legislature cannot impair; and the court 
below concluded that the Legislature did so when it adopted section 121.011(3)(d).   
 
The challenged portions of Senate Bill 2100 impair vested contract rights, 
and such impairment is substantial, as considered in Pomponio v. Claridge of 
Pompano Condominium, Inc., 378 So. 2d 774, 779-80 (Fla. 1979).  The facts here 
show the fiscal impact on individuals ranges from $12,445.81 to $329,683.56.   
 
- 33 - 
In Chiles v. United Faculty of Florida, 615 So. 2d 671, 673 (Fla. 1993), we 
held that before the Legislature can reduce previously approved appropriations to 
pay workers’ salaries made pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, there 
must be no other reasonable alternative means of preserving the contract with the 
public workers in whole or in part and the Legislature must demonstrate a 
compelling state interest.  The State has failed to meet its burden under this test 
because facing a budget shortfall is not enough.  The undisputed record here 
indicates that other reasonable alternatives existed to preserve the state’s contract 
to the FRS, and the Legislature preserved $1.2 billion in unspent general revenue 
funds for the 2011-12 fiscal year.  The trial court found that the Florida Legislature 
chose to effectuate the challenged provisions of Senate Bill 2100 in order to make 
funds available for other purposes.  The trial court also concluded that there is no 
evidence that the integrity of the FRS was the basis for the Legislature’s actions.  
The retirement benefits protected by contract, as established by the Legislature, 
were simply taken from our first responders, those who protect us, those who teach 
and protect our children and others who have provided us services every day, to be 
used for other purposes.   
Under the Florida Constitution, the mandatory 3% contribution and the 
elimination of the cost-of-living adjustment violate article X, section 6, of the 
Florida Constitution because the requirements constitute a taking without full 
 
- 34 - 
compensation being paid to the owner of the property.  Contract rights are property 
rights within the meaning of article X, section 6, based on U.S. Trust Co. of New 
York v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1, 19 n.16 (1977).  The taking of the members’ 
money was done for the public purpose of balancing the state budget even though 
there is no evidence that the integrity of the FRS was the basis for this action.  
Senate Bill 2100 does not compensate the members for this taking and further 
prohibits the payment of interest on the contributions made by the member if the 
member leaves and requests return of the monies contributed.   
Impairment of Collective Bargaining Rights 
 
 
The right of public employees to bargain collectively over wages, hours, and 
other terms and conditions of employment, which right is also constitutionally 
protected by article I, section 6, of the Florida Constitution, is abridged by Senate 
Bill 2100, which effectively removes those issues from the collective bargaining 
process, thereby rendering those negotiations after the fact futile.  Retirement 
pensions and benefits are mandatory subjects of collective bargaining and include 
the right to effective bargaining.   City of Tallahassee v. Pub. Emp. Relations 
Comm’n, 410 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 1981); Hillsborough Cty. Gov’t Employees Ass’n v. 
Hillsborough Cty. Aviation Auth., 522 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 1988).  There is no legal 
authority authorizing the Legislature to unilaterally change a mandatory subject of 
 
- 35 - 
collective bargaining in substantive legislation and there is no compelling state 
interest shown to support such action.   
 
After the circuit court held the provisions of chapter 2011-68 (enacting 
Senate Bill 2100) unconstitutional on the foregoing grounds, the court then 
permanently enjoined the State from implementing the provisions as to individuals 
such as the plaintiffs, and ordered reimbursement with interest of the funds 
withheld from the compensation or cost-of-living adjustments of all public 
employees who were members of FRS prior to July 1, 2011.   
No motion for rehearing was filed by the State raising a claim that the 
remedy was improper or that it failed to provide sufficient flexibility to the State to 
determine the source and timing of refunds.   
It might also be noted that when the 
State appeared at the preliminary injunction hearing early in the litigation, at the 
time the case was proceeding as a possible class action, the State did not indicate 
any special problems would arise in determining the source for a refund if a refund 
was ordered.  Instead, the State assured the court that the refund money would be 
made available. 
All public employees including teachers, first responders, deputies, 
correctional officers, nurses, and social workers who were members of the FRS 
prior to July 1, 2011 have had their contract rights violated.  The qualitative 
changes to the FRS in Senate Bill 2100 that not only reduce the amount of ultimate 
 
- 36 - 
benefits but also change the method of calculating them are entirely unlike the 
changes at issue in Florida Sheriffs upon which the majority relies.  Florida 
Sheriffs simply does not govern the present case.  Furthermore, because the 
changes in Senate Bill 2100 substantially reduce the public employees’ lifetime 
retirement benefits, the changes constitute an impermissible retroactive impairment 
as a matter of law.  This Court should recede from Florida Sheriffs or limit the 
decision to its facts because it is unsound in principle and there has been no 
detrimental reliance upon the decision.  The Court’s interpretation of the statute in 
Florida Sheriffs is contrary to the plain, unambiguous language of the statute we 
must apply.  The statute evinces a clear intent to create a contract protecting a 
member’s overall retirement rights and does not limit that protection to “accrued” 
or “earned” rights.  Those terms are not contained in the statute.  Additionally, pre-
Florida Sheriffs precedent cannot properly be used as a basis to depart from the 
clear language of the statute.  Because of the fundamental contract right involved, 
the unsoundness of the Florida Sheriffs decision, and the lack of substantial 
reliance, the Court should recede from Florida Sheriffs or limit it to its facts, 
adhere to the plain language of Section 121.011(3)(d), and find that the statute 
creates a binding contract that precludes changing the rights of FRS members 
unless the change is permissible under the test for impairment of contract. 
 
- 37 - 
The Legislature asserts a view of the history of the law not argued by the 
State below.  The only relevant legislative history from 1974 cited by the parties is 
the committee report cited by the public employees.  See H.R. Comm. on 
Retirement, Personnel and Claims, Legislative Program Overview, (June 24, 1974) 
(available at Fla. Dep’t of State, Florida State Archives).  In discussing section 
121.011(3)(d), the Committee stated that this section was included to “help 
alleviate the fears of certain members . . . that once the system was made non-
contributory, the Legislature would feel free to change retirement benefits since the 
employee was no longer contributing to the system.”  Regardless, the language in 
section 121.011(3)(d) is clear and unequivocal.  The contract rights in that statute 
have not been limited to accrued benefits.  Section 121.011(3)(d) states that the 
relationship between the member and the State is “contractual in nature,” grants 
“valid contract rights” which are “legally enforceable,” and cannot be “abridged in 
any way.”  This statutory language evinces an unmistakable intent to bind the state 
contractually. 
The state action we consider today constitutes a taking of private property 
without compensation.  The constitutional takings clause is to prevent the 
government from forcing some people alone to bear a burden that should be 
shared.  The state action here constitutes a confiscation of private property of a few 
for a public use.  The State’s contention that there is no taking because the 
 
- 38 - 
contributions “are applied to [the members’] own retirement” reflects a 
misunderstanding of the nature of the property rights protected under section 
121.011(3)(d).  This provision grants public employees enforceable rights to a 
noncontributory retirement plan with a COLA; thus, the taking of those rights 
without any offsetting benefit constitutes a taking.  Even to the extent member 
contributions are “to be used for the members’ own retirement” (which is true for 
the Investment Plan but not for the Pension Plan or the COLA), they do not 
constitute additional funds applied to the members’ retirement.  By eliminating the 
COLA, the amendments significantly reduce the retirement benefits for members 
of the Pension Plan.  The mandatory deduction of private funds in exchange for a 
reduced benefit is an unconstitutional taking. 
Retirement is also a mandatory subject of collective bargaining.  The trial 
court below correctly held that article I, section 6, of the Florida Constitution 
requires that the Legislature not completely ignore the right to collectively bargain 
when passing legislation affecting retirement, an established mandatory subject of 
bargaining.  The State’s claim that the Legislature’s appropriations power 
supersedes public employees’ rights under article I, section 6, is without merit.  
The State’s reliance on State v. Florida Police Benevolent Ass’n, Inc., 613 So. 2d 
415 (Fla. 1992), is misplaced.  That case involved a completely different issue—
whether the Legislature is required to fund a provision of a collective bargaining 
 
- 39 - 
agreement—and says nothing about whether the Legislature may, through 
substantive legislation, unilaterally change a mandatory subject of collective 
bargaining.  Id. at 421. 
This Court’s decisions hold that legislative enactments, including those 
involving appropriations, are limited by article I, section 6.  Article I, section 6, 
guarantees the right to effective collective bargaining.  The trial court correctly 
recognized that there can be no effective bargaining only after the fact where, as 
here, the Legislature has unilaterally predetermined the term or condition through 
statute, rendering any subsequent negotiations futile.  The Legislature has the 
power to make policy affecting subjects of negotiations, but it does not have the 
power to unilaterally amend the law that effectively excuses negotiation altogether. 
 
PERRY, J., dissenting. 
 
I respectfully dissent.  In my view, the challenged provisions of chapter 
2011-68, Laws of Florida, amount to an insufferable and unconstitutional “bait and 
switch” at the expense of public employees who were members of the Florida 
Retirement System (FRS) prior to July 1, 2011.8
                                         
 
8.  This is not the case with public employees who became members of the 
Florida Retirement System after July 1, 2011, as they did not have a contract with 
the State before the effective date of the new law.            
  I would affirm the trial court’s 
ruling and hold that the plain meaning of the preservation of rights statute is that 
 
- 40 - 
state employees have a contractual right to a noncontributory retirement system 
that cannot be abridged; that this Court incorrectly determined otherwise in Florida 
Sheriffs Ass’n v. Department of Administration, 408 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 1981), by 
misapplying the tenets of statutory construction and the law in this context; that we 
should therefore recede from Florida Sheriffs or, at the very least, distinguish and 
limit that case to its facts in accord with the trial court’s ruling below; and that the 
employees at issue in this case are entitled to reimbursement with interest of the 
funds deducted or withheld under the challenged provisions.         
PLAIN MEANING OF THE PRESERVATION OF RIGHTS STATUTE 
 
The preservation of rights statute has provided since its inception that 
[t]he rights of members of the retirement system established by this 
chapter shall not be impaired by virtue of the conversion of the 
Florida Retirement System to an employee noncontributory system.  
As of July 1, 1974, the rights of members of the retirement system 
established by this chapter are declared to be of a contractual nature, 
entered into between the member and the state, and such rights shall 
be legally enforceable as valid contract rights and shall not be 
abridged in any way. 
See § 121.011(3)(d), Fla. Stat. (1974); § 121.011(3)(d), Fla. Stat. (2012); ch. 74-
302, § 1, at 937, Laws of Fla.  The Legislature could not have been more clear.  
The statute’s plain meaning is that state employees have a contractual right to a 
noncontributory retirement system that cannot be abridged.  See art. 1, § 10, Fla. 
Const. (“No . . . law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.”).      
 
- 41 - 
 
“[W]hen the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous and conveys a 
clear and definite meaning, there is no occasion for resorting to the rules of 
statutory interpretation and construction; the statute must be given its plain and 
obvious meaning.”  Atwater v. Kortum, 95 So. 3d 85, 90 (Fla. 2012) (quoting 
Holly v. Auld, 450 So. 2d 217, 219 (Fla. 1984)).  “The best evidence of the intent 
of the legislature is generally the plain meaning of the statute.”  In re Order on 
Prosecution of Criminal Appeals by the Tenth Judicial Circuit Pub. Defender, 561 
So. 2d 1130, 1137 (Fla. 1990).  Without even mentioning the plain meaning rule, 
this Court in Florida Sheriffs stated to the contrary that “to best understand the 
intent of the legislature,” it was necessary to fully discuss the “considerable Florida 
case law which established basic legal guidelines for governmental retirement 
systems in the state” that existed “[p]rior to the statutory enactment of the 
preservation of rights provision in 1974.”  408 So. 2d at 1035. 
 
After improperly considering that case law, the Court in Florida Sheriffs 
held that the preservation of rights statute “vests all rights and benefits already 
earned under the present retirement plan so that the legislature may now only alter 
retirement benefits prospectively,” and that the statute “was not intended to bind 
future legislatures from prospectively altering benefits which accrue for future 
state service.”  Id. at 1037 (emphasis in original).  In so doing, the Court violated 
the plain meaning rule and read into the preservation of rights statute words and 
 
- 42 - 
concepts that simply are not there.  The present majority repeats and compounds 
this error.      
MISAPPLICATION OF LAW 
 
The Court in Florida Sheriffs erroneously buttressed its flawed holding by 
stating that “[t]o hold otherwise would mean that no future legislature could in any 
way alter future benefits of active employees for future services, except in a 
manner favorable to the employee.  This view would, in effect, impose on the state 
the permanent responsibility for maintaining a retirement plan which could never 
be amended or repealed irrespective of the fiscal condition of this state.”  408 So. 
2d at 1037.  That is a misstatement of the law.  As recognized by the present 
majority, where, as here, the contract at issue is with a governmental entity, “an 
impairment may be constitutional if it is reasonable and necessary to serve an 
important public purpose.”  Majority op. at 10 (quoting U.S. Trust Co. of New 
York v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1, 25 (1977)).       
 
This is the test that the Court in Florida Sheriffs should have applied, but it 
failed to do so.  By way of contrast, this Court properly applied this test in Chiles 
v. United Faculty of Florida, 615 So. 2d 671, 673 (Fla. 1993), recognizing that, 
while severely limited, the Legislature has the “authority to change the law to 
eliminate a contractual obligation it has itself created” and “must be given some 
 
- 43 - 
leeway to deal with bona fide emergencies.”  Citing U.S. Trust, this Court held 
that,  
[b]efore that authority can be exercised, . . . the legislature must 
demonstrate no other reasonable alternative means of preserving its 
contract with public workers, either in whole or in part.  The mere fact 
that it is politically more expedient to eliminate all or part of the 
contracted funds is not in itself a compelling reason.  Rather, the 
legislature must demonstrate that the funds are available from no other 
possible reasonable source. 
Id.  Properly applying this test in Florida Sheriffs would have surely led this Court 
to conclude that the statute at issue in that case unconstitutionally impaired state 
employees’ contract rights created by the preservation of rights statute.         
 
In short, the Court in Florida Sheriffs applied the wrong tenets of statutory 
construction and the wrong legal test to reach the wrong result.  I would therefore 
recede from Florida Sheriffs.   
TRIAL COURT’S RULING 
 
Alternatively, and at the very least, I would find Florida Sheriffs to be 
distinguishable and limited to its facts.  In that vein, I agree with Circuit Court 
Judge Jackie L. Fulford’s ruling on this issue, which I find to be correct and 
deserving of recitation here:   
 
The parties agree that any analysis of this issue must begin with 
the Florida Supreme Court’s opinion in Florida Sheriffs Association v. 
Department of Administration, 408 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 1981).  Sheriffs 
involved a special risk credit for a certain limited number of FRS 
members.  The special risk credit was a benefit earned through years 
of service.  The legislature increased the credit from 2% to 3% of the 
 
- 44 - 
employee’s monthly income and then returned the credit to 2%.  
Based upon the facts before it, the Florida Supreme Court found that 
the legislature did not impair its contract with FRS members by 
returning the credit to 2% because the contract created by section 
121.011(3)(d) did not preclude the legislature from “altering benefits 
which accrue for future state service.”  Id.
 
The defendants contend that the 
 at 1037.  
Sheriffs case governs the 
present case and requires that summary judgment be entered in their 
favor.  The plaintiffs contend that Sheriffs does not address the issues 
raised in this case.  This Court finds that the facts upon which the 
Sheriffs decision was based differ substantially from the facts of this 
case.  Unlike the special risk credit at issue in Sheriffs, the changes 
imposed by Senate Bill 2100 are not benefits which accrue for future 
state service.  The changes at issue here, a complete change of the 
plan from a noncontributory to a contributory plan, and the 
elimination of entitlement to a cost-of-living adjustment, are 
qualitative changes to the plan, not changes to individual components 
of future accruals within the plan.  FRS members have had 
continuous, unconditional rights to a noncontributory plan with a cost-
of-living adjustment since the inception of FRS; these elements are 
not related to future state service.  Because the Sheriffs
 
While 
 case did not 
reach or contemplate changes such as these, this Court is bound to 
follow the express language of section 121.011(3)(d), Florida Statutes.  
This provision cannot be read as allowing the legislature to redefine 
established, unconditional contractual rights under Chapter 121 as 
suddenly tied to years of service and thereby altogether eliminated in 
the future.  Such a reading would render the express contract created 
by section 121.011(3)(d) wholly illusory.  
Sheriffs does authorize the legislature to make 
prospective alterations to benefits which accrue for future state service 
within the “mandatory, noncontributory retirement plan,” absolutely 
nothing in it can be read as authorizing the legislature to change the 
fundamental nature of the plan itself.  The legislature is precluded by 
section 121.011(3)(d), Florida Statutes, from “abridg[ing] in any way” 
the unconditional contract rights of the plaintiffs.  The changes 
challenged in this case plainly abridge the plaintiffs’ unconditional 
contract rights to a noncontributory retirement plan that includes a 
cost-of-living adjustment.  Although defendants contend that this 
reading of section 121.011(3)(d) improperly allows one legislature to 
bind the hands of future legislatures, Florida law is clear that a 
 
- 45 - 
legislature can, as part of its power to contract, authorize a contract 
that grants vested rights which a future legislature cannot impair.  
State v. Gadsden County
 
This Court’s determination that Senate Bill 2100 impairs 
plaintiffs’ contract with the state does not end its impairment inquiry. 
For an impairment of contract to be unconstitutional, it also must be 
substantial.  
, 229 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1969).  The Florida 
Legislature clearly did so when it adopted section 121.011(3)(d), 
Florida Statutes.  
U.S. Trust Co. of New York v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1, 
19-21 (1977); see also Pomponio v. Claridge of Pompano Condo., 378 
So. 2d 774, 779-80 (Fla. 1980) (adopting approach to contract clause 
analysis similar to United States Supreme Court).  The unrebutted 
evidence presented by the plaintiffs through their expert Charlette 
Moore demonstrates the substantiality of impairment at issue in this 
case.  The costs of the changes to the individual plaintiffs range from 
$12,445.81 to $329,683.56 over the span of their working years and 
retirement if they receive no further salary raises.  The costs increase 
if their salaries increase.  The elimination of the future cost-of-living 
adjustment alone will result in a 4 to 24% reduction in the plaintiffs’ 
total retirement income.  These costs are substantial as a matter of 
law.  See Oregon State Police Officers’ Ass’n v. State, 918 P.2d 765 
(Or. 1996); Calabro v. City of Omaha, 531 N.W. 2d 541 (Neb. 1995); 
Booth v. Sims
 
The final step of the impairment analysis is a determination of 
whether the impairment is both reasonable and necessary to serve an 
important public purpose.  
, 456 S.E. 2d 167 (W.Va. 1995).  The defendants’ 
attempt to characterize the detrimental effects to plaintiffs as 
insubstantial are unavailing and without legal support.  
U.S. Trust, 431 U.S. at 25.  The Florida 
Supreme Court directs that in order for the state to justify impairment 
of its contractual obligations, it must demonstrate a “compelling state 
interest.”  Chiles v. United Faculty of Fla., 615 So. 2d 671, 673 (Fla. 
1993).  This requires a showing that there was “no other reasonable 
alternative means of preserving its contract with public workers, either 
in whole or in part. . . . that the funds are available from no other 
[possible] reasonable source.” Id.
 
Defendants failed to meet this burden.  They merely produced 
evidence that the state faced a significant budget shortfall; this is not 
enough.  Although ordinarily courts give deference to the legislature 
regarding its policy determinations, where the state violates its own 
contract, “complete deference to a legislative assessment of 
  
 
- 46 - 
reasonableness and necessity is not appropriate because the State’s 
self-interest is at stake.”  U.S. Trust, 431 U.S. at 26.  The undisputed 
record indicates that other reasonable alternatives existed to preserve 
the state’s contract with FRS members: Senate Bill 2100 significantly 
reduced employer contributions to the FRS, and the legislature 
preserved $1.2 billion in unspent general revenue funds for the 2011-
12 fiscal year.  All indications are that the Florida Legislature chose to 
effectuate the challenged provisions of Senate Bill 2100 in order to 
make funds available for other purposes.  This constitutes an 
unconstitutional impairment of plaintiffs’ contract, for “[i]f a State 
could reduce its financial obligations whenever it wanted to spend the 
money for what it regarded as an important public purpose, the 
Contract Clause would provide no protection at all.”  Id.
Williams v. Scott, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 475b, 477 (Fla. 2d Cir. Ct. Mar. 6, 
2012) (emphasis in original).  I further agree with Judge Fulford’s conclusion that 
the proper remedy is for the State “to reimburse with interest the funds deducted or 
withheld, pursuant to the challenged provisions . . . from the compensation or cost-
of-living adjustments [of] employees who were members of the FRS prior to July 
1, 2011.”  Id. at 478. 
   
LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur. 
 
Certified Judgments of Trial Courts in and for Leon County – Jackie Lee Fulford, 
Judge - Case No. 2011 CA 1584 - An Appeal from the District Court of Appeal, 
First District, Case No. 1D12-1269 
 
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Timothy David Osterhaus, Solicitor 
General, and Louis F. Hubener, III, Chief Deputy Solicitor General, Tallahassee, 
Florida, and Raoul G. Cantero, III and Thomas Neal McAliley of White & Case, 
LLP, Miami, Florida, and H. Douglas Hinson of Alston & Bird, LLP, Atlanta, 
Georgia, and David R. Godofsky, and Richard S. Siegel, Washington, District of 
Columbia, 
 
 
for Appellants 
 
- 47 - 
 
Ronald Gustav Meyer, Jennifer Suzanne Blohm, and Lynn Colby Hearn of Meyer, 
Brooks, Demma and Blohm, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida, Alice O’Brien of the 
National Education Association, Washington, District of Columbia, 
 
 
for Appellees 
 
Richard Anthony Sicking, Coral Gables, Florida, 
 
 
for Appellee Brett Sandlin 
 
Aaron Martin Nisenson, Sarasota, Florida, 
 
for Appellees the International Union of Police Associations, AFL-CIO, 
Jason Cannon, Joseph Paduano, and Gary Penny 
 
G. Hal Johnson of the Florida Police Benevolent Association, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for Appellees/Intervenors John Park and Randall Haire 
 
Richard Paul Siwica of Egan, Lev & Siwica, P.A., Orlando, Florida, 
 
 
for Intervenor/Appellee Rodney Durbin 
 
James W. Linn and Glenn E. Thomas of Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A., 
Tallahassee, Florida, and Harry Morrison, Jr. and Kraig A. Conn, Tallahassee, 
Florida,  
 
 
for Amicus Curiae the Florida League of Cities, Inc.  
 
Gregory Thomas Stewart of Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A., Tallahassee, 
Florida, and Virginia Saunders Delegal, Tallahassee, Florida,  
 
 
for Amicus Curiae the Florida Association of Counties, Inc. 
 
 
 
Craig Arthur Meyer, Thomas Ross McSwain, and Leah L. Marino of the Florida 
Senate, Tallahassee, Florida, and George T. Levesque and Donald Jay Rubottom of 
the Florida House of Representatives, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
- 48 - 
 
for Amicus Curiae the Florida Senate and the Florida House of 
Representatives 
 
Robert Evans Weissert, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for Amicus Curiae Florida TaxWatch 
 
Robert David Klausner and Adam Phillip Levinson of Klausner, Kaufman, Jensen 
& Levinson, Plantation, Florida, 
 
for Amicus Curiae the National Conference on Public Employee Retirement 
Systems