Amundsen v. Public Employees' Retirement System

California Court of Appeal Jan 31, 1973 No. Civ. 31381Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the 1971 amendments to the Public Employees' Retirement Law were constitutional because the modifications were reasonable, bore a material relation to the pension system's operation, and provided comparable new advantages to offset the disadvantages imposed on the appellant.

Issues

Whether the 1971 amendments to the Public Employees' Retirement Law constitute an unconstitutional impairment of the appellant's pension rights.
Whether the modifications to the pension system were reasonable and accompanied by comparable new advantages.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“To be sustained as reasonable, alterations of employees’ pensions rights must bear some material relation to the theory of a pension system and its successful operation, and changes in a pension plan which result in disadvantage to employees should be accompanied by comparable new advantages.”

“the mere fact that [appellant], individually, does not desire to share in [the] advantages does not affect the validity of the amendments insofar as they may apply to such employees.”

Opinion

THE COURT.

The facts in this case are not in dispute. Prior to July 1, 1971, the operative date of chapter 170 of the Statutes of 1971, which made a number of changes in the Public Employees’ Retirement Law, the appellant could have retired from state service because he had reached age 55 and had more than $500 in retirement contributions on deposit. Under the new law he will be eligible to retire only after five years of service and he will not have five years of service until December 31, 1973. Appellant contends that he has been deprived of the right to retire on December 31, 1972, as was his intention, and that this is an unconstitutional impairment of his pension rights.

Although section 21203 of the Government Code provides that “after a member [of the retirement system] has qualified as ... to age and service for retirement for service, nothing shall deprive him of the right to a retirement allowance. . . .” it is subject to an implied qualification that a governing body may make reasonable modifications before pensions become payable. “[A]n employee may acquire a vested contractual right to a pension but . . . this right is not rigidly fixed by the specific terms of the legislation in effect during any particular period in which he serves. The statutory language is subject to the implied qualification that the governing body may make modifications and changes in the system. The employee does not have a right to any fixed or definite benefits, but only to a substantial or reasonable pension. There is no inconsistency therefore in holding that he has a vested right to a pension but that the amount, terms and conditions of the benefits may be altered.”

(Kern

City of Long Beach

(1947) 29 Cal.2d 848, 855 [179 P.2d 799].)

“An employee’s vested contractual pension rights may be modified prior to retirement for the purpose of keeping a pension system flexible to permit adjustments in accord with changing conditions and at the same time maintain the integrity of the system. [Citations.] Such modifications must be

[859]

Amundsen v. Public Employees' Retirement System

AI Brief

THE COURT.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief