Opinion ID: 835784
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: State Constitutional Claim Under Article I, Section 20

Text: Petitioner Dahlin argues that the 2003 PERS legislation discriminates on the basis of age in violation of the equal privileges and immunities clause of Article I, section 20, of the Oregon Constitution. [69] More specifically, he argues that the Special Master's findings indicate that the 2003 legislation will have a disparate impact on the service retirement allowances of older workers as opposed to those of younger workers. He argues that, because the 2003 legislation denies older workers benefits that it specifically confers to younger workers, it violates his rights under Article I, section 20. Petitioner Dahlin uses various terms to describe the purported class to which he belongs. On one hand, he argues that the 2003 PERS legislation denies benefits to older workers  a term that he does not define  that it confers to younger workers, but, on the other, he asserts membership in a specific class, namely, Tier One members aged 40 and older. However, even assuming that either categorization is sufficient to define a class for the purposes of Article I, section 20, petitioner Dahlin cannot prevail as a member of either class, as explained below. As to petitioner Dahlin's argument based on a class of older workers, the Special Master's report states that mid-career employees  that is, those within 10 years of retirement  [will] experience greater impacts on their future benefits as a result of the 2003 PERS legislation. According to his report, those members are aged 42 to 52. His report indicates further that members aged 57 are expected to receive benefits greater than those received by mid-career members and even than those received by members aged 37. That data indicates that the oldest group of members are projected to receive benefits in excess of those received by many younger members. Petitioner Dahlin presents no additional evidence nor any evidence to the contrary. In fact, he relies exclusively on the findings set out in the Special Master's report, but he reaches a conclusion exactly opposite to that which is inescapable based on the data set out in that report. We conclude that, even if this court were to agree that older workers compose a recognizable class under Article I, section 20, petitioner Dahlin cannot prevail on his claim here because the evidence simply does not support his assertion that the 2003 PERS legislation treats older workers disparately from younger ones. As to petitioner Dahlin's argument based on a class of Tier One members aged 40 and older, that argument essentially asserts age discrimination within the broader class of Tier One members. Being a Tier One member, however, is a status created entirely by the PERS statutory scheme. As this court has explained, the legislature is free to create statutory classes and to create distinctions among those classes. Greist v. Phillips, 322 Or. 281, 292, 906 P.2d 789 (1995). What the legislature may not do, however, is create distinctions based on characteristics that exist independent of the terms of legislation. Crocker and Crocker, 332 Or. 42, 54-55, 22 P.3d 759 (2001). As noted above, petitioner Dahlin has failed to prove any distinction based on age. He therefore is left to rely entirely on his status as a Tier One member. Because that classification was created by the statutory scheme at issue and does not exist independently of that scheme, it cannot serve as a basis for petitioner Dahlin to assert an Article I, section 20, violation. We therefore reject his claim.