Opinion ID: 1385357
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: abridgement of vested or contractual rights of judicial pensioners

Text: The 1976 amendment, in addition to impairing the vested rights of judges in office, also impairs those of judicial pensioners. [5] (8) A long line of this court's decisions has reiterated the principle that a public employee's pension rights are an integral element of compensation and a vested contractual right accruing upon acceptance of employment. ( Betts v. Board of Administration, supra, 21 Cal.3d 859, 863; Kern v. City of Long Beach, supra, 29 Cal.2d 848, 852-853.) In Betts, this court held that a former state treasurer who had served in that office from 1959 to 1967 was entitled to a pension on the basis of the law in effect at the time of his termination rather than the modified law in effect at the time of his application for pension benefits in 1976. ( Id., at pp. 867-868.) The statute in effect in 1976 purported to withdraw benefits to which he had earned a vested contractual right while employed. Although an employee does not obtain any absolute right to fixed or specific benefits ... there [are] strict limitation[s] on the conditions which may modify the pension system in effect during employment. ( Betts v. Board of Administration, supra, 21 Cal.3d 859, 863-864.) Such modifications must be reasonable and any `changes in a pension plan which result in disadvantage to employees should be accompanied by comparable new advantages.' ( Id., at p. 864.) Since no new comparable or offsetting benefit appeared in the modified plan, we held the 1976 statute unconstitutionally impaired the pensioner's vested rights. (3e) In the present case the state has purported to modify pension rights with the amendment of section 68203. Between 31 December 1969 and 1 January 1977, a judicial pensioner was entitled to receive benefits based on a specified percentage of the salary of a judge holding the judicial office to which the retired or deceased judge was last elected or appointed. (Gov. Code, § 75000 et seq.) The salary for such a judicial office  if the retired or deceased judge served in office during the period 1970 to 1977  was convenanted to increase annually with the increase in the CPI. The 1976 limitation on increases in judicial salaries is, in turn, calculated to diminish benefits otherwise available to those judicial pensioners. Such modification of pension benefits works to the disadvantage of judicial pensioners by reducing potential pension increases, and provides no comparable new benefit. Again, we conclude that defendants have failed to demonstrate justification for impairing these rights or that comparable new advantages were included and that section 68203 as amended is unconstitutional as to certain judicial pensioners. Contractually, each judicial pensioner is entitled to some fixed percentage of the salary payable to the judge holding the particular judicial office to which the retired or deceased judge was last elected or appointed. (See e.g., Gov. Code, §§ 75032, 75033.5, 75060.6, 75076, 75077, 75091, 75093, 75094, 75096, 75096.1, 75096.3.) Accordingly, a judicial pensioner cannot claim impairment of a vested right arising out of the 1976 amendment except when the judge holding the particular judicial office could also claim such an impairment. The resolution of pensioner vested rights, then, is dependent on the foregoing resolution of judges' vested rights left unimpaired by the 1976 amendment. Judicial pensioners whose benefits are based on judicial services terminating while section 68203 provided for unlimited cost-of-living increases in judicial salaries, acquired a vested right to a pension benefit based on some proportionate share of the salary of the judge or justice occupying the particular judicial office including the incumbent judge's or justice's unlimited cost-of-living increases. Judicial pensioners whose benefits are based on judicial services terminating before the effective date of applicable law providing for unlimited cost-of-living increases, have no vested right to benefits resulting therefrom. Legislation providing for unlimited cost-of-living increases was first enacted in 1964 to become effective on 1 January 1965, although the statute then provided for quadrennial increases based on a different index than the CPI. (Stats. 1964, First Ex. Sess., ch. 144, p. 518, § 4.) However, it is not necessary for our purposes to determine a judicial pensioner's right as being vested. Vested or not, a pensioner's right entitles him or her to benefits based on the prevailing salary for the judge or justice occupying the particular judicial office, regardless of the date of termination of judicial services giving rise to the pension. [6] Finally, as in the case of judges or justices who enter upon a new or unexpired term of a predecessor judge after 31 December 1976, benefits of judicial pensioners based on the salaries of such judges will be governed by the 1976 amendment. [7]