Title: Goodson v. Public Employees Retirement System

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

1 
 
Filed:  October 6, 2011 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON 
 
 
JOHN GOODSON, 
ANTHONY SANTOS, PAUL WASHBURN, 
JAMES MICHAUD, DONA ALDRICH, 
and SALVADOR CANTU,  
 
Petitioners, 
 
v. 
 
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM,  
Respondent. 
 
(Agency Nos. 900900, 900901, 900903, 900915, 900916, 900937;  
SC S059056) 
 
 
En Banc 
 
 
On certification from the Court of Appeals in a judicial review from a ruling on 
summary determination and final order of the Public Employees Retirement Board. 
 
 
Argued and submitted January 6, 2011. 
 
 
John E. Hoag, Snyder and Hoag, LLC, Petersburg, AK, argued the cause and filed 
the briefs for petitioners. 
 
 
Michael A. Casper, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for 
respondent.  With him on the brief were John R. Kroger, Attorney General, and Jerome 
Lidz, Solicitor General. 
 
 
DE MUNIZ, C. J. 
 
 
The order of the Public Employees Retirement Board is affirmed. 
 
 
1 
 
 
 
 DE MUNIZ, C. J. 
1 
 
 
Petitioners seek judicial review under ORS 183.482 of a final order of the 
2 
Public Employees Retirement Board (PERB).  They contest the reduction of their 
3 
retirement benefits as a result of PERB's efforts to recoup benefit overpayments that 
4 
petitioners had received because of an erroneous 20 percent earnings credit for 1999.  
5 
The Court of Appeals certified the matter to this court under ORS 19.405.  We affirm 
6 
PERB's final order. 
7 
 
 
This is a companion case to our decision today in Arken v. City of Portland, 
8 
___ Or ___, ___ P3d ___ (2011).  To avoid unnecessary repetition, we will refer 
9 
frequently to the various detailed factual and legal discussions contained in that opinion.  
10 
In particular, Arken sets out the extensive legal and historical background surrounding 
11 
PERS, the 20 percent earnings credit granted by PERB to certain members' regular 
12 
retirement accounts in 1999, and the later litigation and legislation that resulted instead in 
13 
an 11.33 percent credit for that year.  ___ Or at ___ (slip op at 5-15). 
14 
 
 
As in Arken, petitioners in this case are also "Window Retirees," meaning 
15 
(among other things) that they had retired effective on or after April 1, 2000, but before 
16 
April 1, 2004.  See ___ Or at ___ (slip op at 1 n 1) (defining "Window Retirees").  In 
17 
2007 and 2008, PERB recalculated petitioners' retirement benefits to reflect an 11.33 
18 
percent credit for 1999 and sought to recoup the overpayments on their retirement 
19 
benefits that had resulted from the prior 20 percent credit.  Petitioners challenged those 
20 
recalculations, first before an administrative law judge (ALJ) of the Office of 
21 
Administrative Hearings, then before PERB.  In doing so, petitioners did not challenge 
22 
2 
 
the mathematical recalculations of their individual benefits by PERB, but challenged 
1 
instead PERB's legal authority to make those recalculations using an 11.33 percent credit 
2 
for 1999.  Additionally, petitioners sought interest on cost of living adjustments (COLAs) 
3 
that the legislature had frozen beginning in 2003.  Both the ALJ and PERB rejected 
4 
petitioners' arguments.  Petitioners then sought judicial review. 
5 
 
 
On judicial review, petitioners assign three errors.  First, petitioners 
6 
contend that the reduction in their retirement benefits by PERB unconstitutionally 
7 
impaired the obligation of contract in violation of Article I, section 21, of the Oregon 
8 
Constitution.1  Petitioners assert that PERB promised particular benefits after retirement 
9 
based on the 20 percent earnings credit in 1999, and that petitioners relied on that 
10 
promise when they retired. 
11 
 
 
Petitioners' argument rests on a false premise.  The terms of the statutory 
12 
contract between the state and its retirees are determined by examining the pertinent 
13 
statutes enacted by the legislature; PERB had no authority to make or change those 
14 
contractual terms.  Arken,  ___ Or at ___ (slip op at 28); Strunk v. PERB, 338 Or 145, 
15 
175, 108 P3d 1058 (2005).  "[T]he purported promise by PERB to calculate their 
16 
retirement benefits on a 20 percent crediting allowance for 1999 is a promise that PERB 
17 
could not lawfully make."  Arken,___ Or at ___ (slip op at 28-29).  Because petitioners' 
18 
claim of a contractual right to the 20 percent earnings credit for 1999 relies solely on the 
19 
alleged promises by PERB, not on any statutory provision, their argument fails.  See 
20 
                                                 
 
1  
Article I, section 21, of the Oregon Constitution provides, in part:  
"No * * * law impairing the obligation of contracts shall ever be passed * * *." 
3 
 
Strunk, 338 Or at 17 (expressly holding that PERS handbooks, communication from 
1 
PERB to PERS members, and employer employment policies do not constitute terms of 
2 
the PERS contract). 
3 
 
 
In their second assignment of error, petitioners assert that PERB violated 
4 
procedural due process when it failed to give them notice of the pending litigation 
5 
challenging the 20 percent earnings credit for 1999.  See Arken, ___ Or at ___ (slip op at 
6 
8-13) (discussing that litigation, the subsequent legislative amendments, and the 
7 
settlement).  Specifically, petitioners contend that, once PERB learned of their plans to 
8 
retire, it was constitutionally required to give petitioners notice of the pending litigation 
9 
and to inform them that they could not rely on getting the 20 percent credit. 
10 
 
 
In addressing petitioners' due process argument, we first must consider 
11 
whether the state has acted to deprive them of a protected interest in property.  See US 
12 
Const, Amend XIV, § 1 ("[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or 
13 
property, without due process of law * * *."); American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 
14 
526 US 40, 59, 119 S Ct 977, 143 L Ed 2d 130 (1999) ("The first inquiry in every due 
15 
process challenge is whether the plaintiff has been deprived of a protected interest in 
16 
'property' or 'liberty.'").  Such a protected interest in property requires that the person 
17 
have a "legitimate claim of entitlement" to a benefit that arises "from an independent 
18 
source such as state law."  Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 US 564, 577, 92 S Ct 2701, 33 
19 
L Ed 2d 548 (1972).   
20 
 
 
In this case, no source of law gave petitioners a legitimate claim of 
21 
entitlement to a 20 percent earnings credit for 1999.  Petitioners have not identified any 
22 
4 
 
part of the statutory contract between the legislature and petitioners that would entitle 
1 
them to a 20 percent earnings credit for 1999, and, as we have explained, PERB lacked 
2 
authority to promise such a credit.  See Arken, ___ Or at ___ (slip op at 16-17) (2003 
3 
PERS reform legislation did not constitute statutory promise to grant Window Retirees 20 
4 
percent credit for 1999); id. at ___ (slip op at 28-29) (noting PERB's lack of authority to 
5 
modify the statutory contract); Strunk, 338 Or at 175 (same).  Furthermore, petitioners 
6 
could not reasonably have relied on PERB's representations regarding the 20 percent 
7 
earnings credit, because they had reason to know that PERB lacked the authority to make 
8 
such a promise.  Arken, ___ Or at ___ (slip op at 29).  Accordingly, we reject petitioners' 
9 
second assignment of error. 
10 
 
 
Petitioners' third assignment of error seeks interest on delayed COLAs.  In 
11 
2003, the legislature had attempted to recoup the overpayments to the Window Retirees 
12 
caused by the erroneous 20 percent earnings credit by suspending COLAs on those 
13 
accounts, rather than seeking repayment by other means.  See Strunk, 338 Or at 217-18 
14 
(discussing legislation and effect); Arken, ___ Or at ___ (slip op at 16-17) (summarizing 
15 
statutory scheme).  This court later held that the COLA suspension breached a term of the 
16 
PERS contract, so the court invalidated that portion of the statute.  Strunk, 338 Or at 218-
17 
25; see Arken, ___ Or at ___ (slip op at 15-20) (further explicating that holding in 
18 
Strunk).  Petitioners contend that they are entitled to be paid interest on those delayed 
19 
COLAs. 
20 
 
 
Interest cannot be awarded here.  ORS 238.470 states:  
21 
 
"Interest is not payable on any payment from the Public Employees 
22 
5 
 
Retirement Fund unless specifically provided for in this chapter." 
1 
Petitioners do not identify any statute or constitutional provision that would authorize or 
2 
require the interest they seek.2  Petitioners rely only on their claim that an award of 
3 
interest is "normal," which is not sufficient to justify ignoring a statutory directive. 
4 
 
 
The order of the Public Employees Retirement Board is affirmed. 
5 
                                                 
 
2  
During the administrative proceedings, petitioners conceded that PERS was 
"correct" in its assertion that no statute authorized the payment of interest.