Court Opinion

ID: 9665088
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:39:12.947416+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:12.805798
License: Public Domain

ANDERSON, G. BARRY, J.
(concurring).
Respondent Norman has satisfied all elements necessary to enforce a promise under promissory estoppel, and CHRA has not shown any need to break its promise to her. Norman is therefore entitled to relief and I concur with the result reached by the majority.
But I conclude that this record does not support the contractual analysis used by the majority and would decide this dispute on the promissory estoppel principles we adopted in Christensen v. Minneapolis Municipal Employees Retirement Board, 331 N.W.2d 740 (Minn.1983).
The majority opinion holds, “the statutory authority granted to a public employer to contract in a CBA to pay retiree health insurance premiums obviates the need to resort to promissory estoppel when a CBA includes this benefit.” But this grant of authority, found in the 1988 amendments to the Public Employment Labor Relations Act, see Act of Apr. 24, 1988, ch. 605, § 4, 1988 Minn. Laws 671, 674-75 (codified at Minn.Stat. § 179A.03, subd. 19 (1988)), does no such thing because, although Minnesota law is hardly clear on this point, contractual obligations generally do not survive the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement. See, e.g., Litton Fin. Printing Div. v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd., 501 U.S. 190, 207-08, 111 S.Ct. 2215, 115 L.Ed.2d 177 (1991).
The policies necessitating examination under promissory estoppel have not changed. Prior to our decision in Christensen, a public retirement benefit was considered a mere gratuity, a “bounty springing from the graciousness and appreciation of sovereignty.” Gibbs v. Minneapolis Fire Dep’t Relief Ass’n, 125 Minn. 174, 177, 145 N.W. 1075, 1077 (1914). We noted in Christensen that this view was justified in the early 20th century, when retirement benefits generally were insignificant in amount and not considered compensation for work rendered. Christensen, 331 N.W.2d at 746. In Gibbs, the interest of the sovereign was paramount as against the interest of the public employee. But as employees relied more on promised pension benefits, the balance between the interest of the sovereign and the employee changed. In Gorczyca v. City of Minneapolis, 174 Minn. 594, 598, 219 N.W. 924, 925 (1928), we stated that a retirement allowance “is not a gratuity when the services are rendered while the pension or retirement relief statute is in force, so that the statute becomes a part of the contract of employment and contemplates such pension or allowance as part of compensation for the services rendered.” In Christensen, we weighed these competing interests *339and expressly rejected a contractual analysis. In so doing, we stated, “[a] conventional contract approach, with its strict rules of offer and acceptance, tends to deprive the analysis of the relationship between the state and its employees of a needed flexibility.” 331 N.W.2d at 747.
The majority opinion concludes that the legislature intended a radical change in its approach to retirement health insurance benefits. In 1988, the legislature added “employer payment of, or contributions to, premiums for group insurance coverage of retired employees” to the terms and conditions of employment that may be negotiated in a collective bargaining agreement. Act of Apr. 24, 1988, ch. 605, § 4, 1988 Minn. Laws 671, 674-75 (codified at Minn. Stat. § 179A.03, subd. 19 (1988)). The majority argues that the legislature intended to create a contractual right of indefinite duration between government and its soon-to-be former employees to produce cost savings by encouraging early retirement. To this end, the majority relies on dates of statutory adoption and the logical, even if unsupported, conclusion that employees would not retire with an incentive of only a three-year health insurance benefit.
It is indeed possible that the legislature intended to do just that; regrettably, the legislature did not expressly state this intention, but only added to the terms that may be included in a collective bargaining agreement of limited duration. The legislature, which is knowledgeable about and heavily involved in regulating negotiation of collective bargaining agreements, could have easily inserted specific authorizing language extending the term of retiree health insurance provisions beyond the length of a collective bargaining agreement either indefinitely or for some other term. The legislature, which was well aware of our decision five years earlier in Christensen establishing our promissory estoppel analysis for benefits extending beyond the term of a collective bargaining agreement, could have added language explicitly creating a contractual right. But it did not do so. Where the legislature did face the question, language of limitation was employed rather than language of expansion: “A contract may not obligate an employer to fund all or part of the cost of health care benefits for a former employee beyond the duration of the contract, subject to 179A.20, subdivision 6.” Minn.Stat. § 179A.20, subd. 2a (2004).
In response to this language, the majority engages in a definitional analysis and concludes that “fund” is not the same as “pay.” But authority for this proposition is limited to a common dictionary definition. The majority then uses the distinction between “fund” and “pay” as a way around what would otherwise be a barrier to a contractual analysis. But in fact, fund and pay are often interchangeable. See, e.g., Black’s Law Dictionary 697 (8th ed.2004) (defining “fund” as “to furnish money to (an individual, entity, or venture)”). Whatever nuanced distinctions may exist between “fund” and “pay,” in practice those distinctions are not sufficiently convincing to support the majority’s divination of legislative intent. If the legislature intended to create a contractual right, the legislature could have done so. It did not, and based on separation of powers principles, we should act with restraint.
Further, it is unnecessary to reach this question in the first instance because the respondent has made a powerful and persuasive argument that promissory estoppel mandates the result reached by the district court and the court of appeals. I would affirm the court of appeals on the basis of promissory estoppel and would not use the *340contractual analysis framework adopted by the majority opinion.