you i would disappear if i said them last year the california supreme court revisited the issue of the implied vesting of public employee benefits in the cal fire case it repeated holding from riyadh free to two thousand and eleven supreme court case the best thing can be proven by manifest evidence of legislative intent but then it went on to hold that if the employment benefit issue constitutes early compensation that benefit is vested without regard to other evidence of legislative quoting from the court even in the absence of a manifest legislative intent to create such rights contractual rights are implied as a result of the nature of the women and noted that pension benefits are the paradigm for compensation but according to easily made it clear that other benefits would qualify for this protection court say quote we have consistently recognized elements of public employee compensation other than engine benefits also may be entitled to this type of protection and in the cour what is the vested what is deferred compensation what is not with a two part test st does it quote flow directly from the public employees service and cloud and nd is the magnitude of the benefit  roughly proportional to the time of that service here the county does not in cannot dispute that this benefit the gram benefit meets both of those requirements employees automatically receive they're required to contribute into the body those funds in a retirement help the remainder of the funding came from a mandatory one percent ongoing contribution from employees in the program now the county says it paid for that one percent b on the remainder of the funding in addition to the pension funds came from the employee contribution another county so that it covered that contribution even if it did what the county is saying is that it gave employees a one percent wage strongly reinforced retirees position and that the grand benefits quote constituted a form of deferred compensation assured to those employees who continue working until they became eligible nothing you're right i understand i think they're one of the same though i think that all of the evidence we have a blue go shooting history the funding mechanism the way that it was presented to the unions one percent rebate all of those votes to what the intent of the county was million term should not control because that would suggest that the county took one hundred and fifty million dollars from the unions in one thousand nine hundred and ninety two and then committed to a one or two here program a benefit this court says that was implausible benefit is is the evidence of the intent in other words is not does not the words are magical if the if the benefit looks like to her compensations for the lack of attention but that's how i mistake maybe i don't know then where where where we left in terms of the bigger you know what to do with something that as a matter of law is meet the definition of the bird well my personal opinion would be in that case it that the mistake would fall on the employer and the boys have a right to rely on the character of the benefit and treated is as vested in that case so i guess my answer is if it meets the definition of deferred compensation then be the quest for intent and i actually think if you look for intent separate from different compensation the way our case was and when the before fire is still a very compelling case that the intent is found in the pardoning history the character question the county didn't move on that theory the county doesn't even try to defend it just reports reasoning for dismissing that district courts can't dismiss theories of recovery without the opposing party moving on them without giving a three hundred and eighty four million dollars that was dedicated to retiree health and a county says remarkably doesn't know what happened to that money the money was earmarked for retiree benefits it was a bargain for funding men at the negotiating  and the california teachers association or he says that a funding mechanism gives rise to imply contract rights there's a palpable element of strain and here there's no question that the funding mechanism was set up in exchange for thirteen years and on behalf of the county i urge the court to finally put this this challenge to rest i did want to pay a personal tribute to jennifer knock who's been with me was with me  for shoulder to shoulder on this case since the beginning order heart and soul into this case and died last year at the age of fifty three dollars but for her untimely passing she'd it would likely be her standing here not me and counties program here in the reforms negotiated over fourteen years were significant success story unlike in one thousand nine hundred and seventy nine when the county was forced simply to cut off medical subsidies altogether here the moves made by the county in partnership with labor and save the planet and we've got thousands of employees and retired i'm settled as of retiree's participating in quality group health coverage  and they're not disqualified by preexisting medical conditions and i know the challenge here is now narrowly suppose focused on the grant plan and i'm going to turn to that shortly but i just have to emphasize that the overall plan  this is the rd challenge to retirees plan plan issues and reforms in the county was included expanding health plan choices for retirees and making a huge investment in outreach to the have to help retirees understand their difficult when options under the circumstances i mean remember one option on the table as the c e o said in the record eliminate the point and that did not happen in the county is quite pleased that it was able to continue t plan cal fire affirmed riyad three california supreme court principles there which the court unlike what counsel just suggested the court should do and that is if this was a mistake if this mister if the county did not intend this to be a vested benefit immutable and not properly subject to any sort of plan adjustment that falls on intent doesn't matter and it falls on the county that's exactly what the supreme court said it you know it was building in these safeguards to preclude these unforeseen windfalls these unforeseen  cases that would cause you know financial problems to the county so i just don't think you can you can read it that way and the other point that i that i need to make and was raised by the panel  plan document simply was not shared not negotiated i've known kind of thing and that's reflected in footnotes five where are the dips decision says you know the simple existing existence of the end save us laws therefore provides no basis for holding retiree's implied contract claims implausible as a matter of law underneath all analysis of what's possibility we're different place now  we have a developed record fully developed and it's undisputed that this legislative package if you will included the plan document included the yellow use that incorporated some of the plans features of plan document past sunshines agenda in public no no question that this was a publicly and properly adopted piece of legislation  tribal issue of the curious act on that point and i agree counsel said yes i agree that is the the original point that is was hammered home in riyadh hammered and air and there is no disputed fact on that issue because you have expressed an express resolution that says that there is no vested right that the county does have the right to make the reason to make adjustments and that's exactly what the committee did here so there is no so you have now this this this fragmentation of other evidence and i do want to i do want to raise one other issue which is part of the argument again no disputed fact that the county's intent was not to create a vested right that cannot be disputed because it's for book law you can't buy implication fragments that's in a separate document so so it's not as clear as as you're trying to make it seem well d it is all clear that it was passed at one time the enabling legislation is one package of legislation that is has to be read together based on your stories that we provided that's that's the only way logically to to read it and or another in other words and i would also say there did the racial clauses in the the benefits described in the n y u expire that's why there is a generational clause but it does create another hurdle for the plaintiffs to overcome in this case which we don't think that they've overcome and i do think that  have recognized that to the supreme court and tack it les hoke or california court judges on this panel have recognized the importance of the racial clauses and and the presumption that they create about funding mechanism funding terms so what are we supposed to do with that i think you have to read it collectively and you have to start with the question that was raised and  has to be because that's express has to be there's no tribal issue there because you haven't expressed instrument that that's says just to the contrary and you've got these other funding arrangements let me let me let me address that you've got you know the are a range you know similar arguments were made in riyadh case about the other subsidy that was in place there and challenge that is a methodology for how the benefit was calculated and same arguments were made similar arguments that look at the funding look at the fact that the board looked at actuarial analyses that projected out two thousand and thirty years and  and that this somehow demonstrated that there was a vested right in this area in the court said you know these are the sorts fragments of evidence here you know when you're talking about the cooling agreement slow this case and so a lot of the evidence that you know the other kind of fragments of the other and so about people what people said the bargaining history those are when that's a different kind of a benefit plan that you that you don't have at issue here and if you look at thirteen the supreme court specifically said it was not it was not it had never held future and the court went through a recitation of how it got to where it's got me in that context here you're in a different area and i say that because retiree medical plans are kind of intrinsically different than defined benefit plan traditional defined benefit plans there's myriad subsidies that run around in his plans co pays plan design you have geographical limitations if you if you couldn't and those things get changed so if you those don't get locked in i mean there's all in that in particular in the dynamic world of medical benefits we're all aware of the cost and challenges associated with them those things are constantly changing do along with are along with the one percent contribution along with what other people said and did somehow lock the county into making any adjustments and it's inventing them for making any importance that is a good question i believe that's a legal question but there's obviously presumably some factual component relative to that if there were actual winners but i just can't i mean and it's it to me the again this is off off the cuff here because we're not there and i certainly hope we don't go there but  it's like you'd have to say you know i don't see how that could would go to the jury without some very very specific kinds of jury instructions that could potentially lead the jury there  and i and i also just want to say i mean in closing i'm starting over my time that the danger in these kinds of cases is kind of reflected here and i've had a number of these cases where you you've got now you've got two thousand and thirty decades old kind of recollections of people d what they saw things men mostly from folks who are actually well intentioned but self serving let's face it and that's why courts look to what's in the record from europe and if you look at the your left off we're not basing her face on recollections are so certain recollections we have documented bargaining history we have facts we all there is recollection from all three of the people who were in charge of this process and that counts for a yearly for by the unions and had a specific funding mechanism that was dedicated and not one of these like you switched from cigna kaiser is a different kind of thing this is a benefit that was visibly bargain mentioned during collective bargaining this is the case for the jury summary judgment does not get granted when there is is it a fact as some are these intense even of them standard is higher than normal and standard the idea that they could have taken this way after one year it remains implausible as implausible as it was and twenty eight dollars he even when this court said it was impossible that is ridiculous to say you understand your honor and we we've met we have evidence to prove everything that we lead in fact the record was fairly well developed at the time of the motions and you understand i'm not saying that because of hair as we when i saying that the rationale doesn't appear doesn't disappear on riemann and the idea that you can go one year and cancel it that was the intent is ridiculous there is a better way to read the plan documents than documents as the county retains whatever power it didn't give away at the bargaining if you read section five point four and five five together with one three that is the best way reasonable and lawful way to read it the county was bang out of sight of the m o used we're not creating any rights to of time well that's the question that's presented you're on and they don't say how long and when well but they each have a terminus and correct but we know from prior cases and that is not determinative now it might be it might be evidence and you know in courts do not read contractual documents to be legal and they don't describe illegal intent to counting it was void it was beyond the county's true station if that was his intent but i don't think that was his intent i think its intent was to say the p m o you analysis other than the ammo used were not just by creating this plan and we're not getting into any rights look to the im abuse and that's in the express language of the i point for says that it doesn't give the county over our it gives a power except as