Opinion ID: 1286488
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the state as a participating pers employer

Text: The state admits that it has breached a statutory contract to provide PERS benefits free from state income taxation [w]ith respect to    its former employees who were employed in PERS-covered positions, only, and with respect to PERS benefits that had accrued or were accruing before September 29, 1991, only. In other words, in response to plaintiffs' pleadings, the state has admitted its liability to its own former employees. That issue has been resolved on the pleadings, and no party brings it to us for review. Accordingly, the issue of the state's liability to its own former employees is not before this court. The state argues that SB 656 and HB 3349 fully compensate its former employees for the damages due to them under this court's decision in Hughes. Stovall plaintiffs concede that implementation of those acts would constitute a complete remedy [10] for the breach of contract of which they complain. Chess plaintiffs do not so concede. As we discuss below, 324 Or. at 126, 922 P.2d at 664, the completeness of the remedies provided in those acts is not before us. Accordingly, as to Chess plaintiffs that were former employees of the state, that is an issue that will have to be resolved on remand. The state also argues that the use of PERF monies to compensate its former employees, as provided in SB 656 and HB 3349, is legal and constitutionally valid. Plaintiffs do not contend otherwise. Accordingly, as between the state and its own former employees, the validity of SB 656 and HB 3349 is not at issue. [11]