Sunday, January 17, 2021
  • About
  • Advertise
  • Careers
  • Contact
Pension Changes
  • Home
  • Government Policy
  • Pension Changes
  • Pension Information
  • Pension Rights
  • Retirement Pension
No Result
View All Result
Pension Changes
Home Pension Rights

California High Court Upholds Law Closing Pension-Padding Loopholes

July 31, 2020
in Pension Rights
California High Court Upholds Law Closing Pension-Padding Loopholes
0
SHARES
0
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

The California Supreme Court building in San Francisco. (Courthouse News photo / Maria Dinzeo)

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — In a unanimous ruling Thursday, the California Supreme Court upheld a 2013 pension reform law forbidding police unions and other public employees from cashing in on unused sick and vacation time to increase their pension benefits.

The ruling centers on the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act, a law restricting the types of pay that can be considered part of an employee’s final compensation on retirement. It also took aim at a practice known as “pension spiking,” whereby county workers boost their retirement income by cashing in on the unused paid vacation and holiday leave time they accrued while working.

Pensions are calculated based on an employees’ final salary when they retire. PEPRA amended the County Employees Retirement Law, the statutory framework by which pensions are calculated, to exclude leftover vacation and holiday pay from that final amount.

Beneficiaries of county retirement systems in Alameda, Contra Costa, and Merced counties challenged the law, but the state’s high court found it was enacted for the constitutionally permissible purpose of preventing perceived abuses of the pension system. 

The justices also ruled the state is not required to provide county employees with any equal new benefits in exchange.

The court stopped short of scuttling the California Rule, a set of decades-old legal precedents that say in short that diminished employee pension rights should be offset by some comparable benefit.

“Experience with the implementation of a statutory pension system will inevitably reveal the need for change to close loopholes and foreclose opportunities for abuse,” Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye wrote for the court. “The Legislature must have the authority, discretion, and flexibility to address such problems without being required to, in effect, extend the life of the loopholes and the opportunities for abuse for the duration of the careers of current employees by providing comparable advantages.”

Cantil-Sakauye said because the PEPRA does not run afoul of the so-called California Rule, the court saw “no jurisprudential reason to undertake a fundamental re-examination of the rule.”

In a separate concurrence, Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar said it was important to note that the court tailored its analysis in finding that a reduction in pension rights without comparable new benefits was reasonable here. 

While PEPRA does not provide any recompense for county employees, despite diminishing their benefits, “We uphold the change nonetheless, in this quite particular situation: The definitional change was enacted for a constitutionally permissible purpose — one that would have been undermined by the provision of any offsetting financial advantage for employees,” Cuéllar wrote, adding, “Second, at no point did plaintiffs in this case attempt to show the amended definition was unnecessary to achieve the Legislature’s permissible purpose, or was otherwise unreasonable.”

The court’s ruling means the three counties’ consolidated challenge will end up back in state court for further proceedings.

Its narrow application is cold comfort for anyone hoping for a blockbuster opinion, according to pension expert Steve Berliner, a partner with Liebert Cassidy Whitmore. 

“It doesn’t resolve the underlying issues of what pension reform is OK, if any,” he said by phone Thursday.

He added the ruling implies that the court would not have looked favorably on the amendment if it was solely designed to make pensions more affordable for public entities. 

“The way I interpret the overall decision is the court has by and large, without wanting to say it, upheld the California Rule,” Berliner said. “It’s nice to know that if you’re closing loopholes the court will uphold it and you don’t have to provide alternative benefits, but that’s not where the money is. The savings is in reducing benefits going forward.”

Berliner said the ruling is “almost as disappointing” as the court’s unanimous decision last year that didn’t touch the California Rule even as it upheld the state’s repeal of a perk that allowed state employees to purchase “air time,” or credits to be added to their pensions on retirement.

“If anyone was thinking that we would have a decision that would clear the path to  knowing whether the Legislature can do further pension reform or not, it’s kind of still up in the air,” Berliner said.

Ted Toppin, chairman of Californians for Retirement Security — a coalition of representing unions — said in a statement that while the court’s ruling preserves the California Rule, it appears to jeopardize the retirement security of the sheriffs’ deputies in Alameda County who agreed to take lower salaries in reliance on the county’s pension promises.

“Their employer and retirement system made a promise to them that the court decision now allows them to break. That is unfair and unfortunate,” Toppin said. “If public employers make a pension commitment to their workers, they should keep it.”

Like this:

Like Loading…

Related posts

Law, Practice and Precedents (8th Edition)

Law, Practice and Precedents (8th Edition)

January 15, 2021
Guest comment: Credit where it’s due

Guest comment: Credit where it’s due

January 15, 2021

— to www.courthousenews.com

Previous Post

Keep Me Posted: New DOL Rule Disadvantages Many Americans by Making Electronic Delivery the Default for Retirement and Pension Plan Information

Next Post

What the CA Supreme Court pension decision means for workers

Next Post
What the CA Supreme Court pension decision means for workers

What the CA Supreme Court pension decision means for workers

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

RECOMMENDED NEWS

Walters: High Court Weighs Timely Pension Case

Walters: High Court Weighs Timely Pension Case

8 months ago
Global Wealth Not Buckling Under Pandemic Strain: Credit Suisse 2020 Report

Global Wealth Not Buckling Under Pandemic Strain: Credit Suisse 2020 Report

3 months ago
EU Court to Consider if an Irish Pension can be Exempted from a UK Bankruptcy Estate

UPDATE – Do employees still benefit from death coverage or an accrual of pension rights when temporarily unemployed due to Covid-19?

7 months ago
NHS workers warned death benefits may be lost if they opt out of schemes because of coronavirus – The Sun

NHS workers warned death benefits may be lost if they opt out of schemes because of coronavirus – The Sun

9 months ago

FOLLOW US

  • 79 Followers
  • 27.6k Followers
  • 40.7k Subscribers

BROWSE BY CATEGORIES

  • Government Pension Policy
  • Pension Changes
  • Pension Information
  • Pension Policy
  • Pension Rights
  • Retirement Pension
  • Uncategorized

BROWSE BY TOPICS

2021 2021 Pensions auto-enrolment age 18 auto enrolment pension contributions 2021/22 auto enrolment rates 2020/21 auto enrolment rates 2021/22 cashing in pension at 55 cashing in pension calculator cashing in small pension pots CCP retirement check my state pension Disabled pensions drawdown employer pension contributions 2021/22 government policy examples uk list of government policies uk minimum pension contributions 2021 minimum pension contributions 2022 new state pension Pension age pension issues pension ombudsman pension plan pension regulator Pensions Advisory Service Pensions Brexit pension scheme uk Pensions outlook retirement 2 million scams scheme funding Single mothers pensions State Pension State Pension age state pension changes state pension forecast State Pensions State triple lock taking pension at 55 the pensions regulator Therese Coffey uk pension age UK State Pension uk state pension age what is government policy uk

POPULAR NEWS

  • Multiemployer pension reform not happening this year

    Multiemployer pension reform not happening this year

    5 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • Exit payment cap: Implications for the LGPS

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • Public Service Pensions Update | October 2020

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • NEST: More than a pension | Country Report

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • Builders were not self-employed, rules employment tribunal

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0

Follow us on social media:

Recent News

  • Law, Practice and Precedents (8th Edition)
  • State pension payments can be received while working – will more tax need to be paid?
  • What is the average UK retirement income?

Category

  • Government Pension Policy
  • Pension Changes
  • Pension Information
  • Pension Policy
  • Pension Rights
  • Retirement Pension
  • Uncategorized

Recent News

Law, Practice and Precedents (8th Edition)

Law, Practice and Precedents (8th Edition)

January 15, 2021

State pension payments can be received while working – will more tax need to be paid?

January 15, 2021
  • About
  • Advertise
  • Careers
  • Contact

© 2020 Please contact us on partnership@pensionchanges.co.uk if you would like to reach our audience.

No Result
View All Result
  • Home

© 2020 Please contact us on partnership@pensionchanges.co.uk if you would like to reach our audience.