Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver

California's premier full-service law firm with an emphasis on the representation of peace officers in disciplinary, criminal, labor, workers' compensation, personal injury and other civil matters.

  • About Us
  • Practice Areas
    • Labor Representation
    • Civil Litigation
    • Personal Injury
      • Example of Case Results
    • Workers’ Compensation
    • Maritime Law
    • Estate Planning
    • DOE Security Clearance Hearings
    • Peace Officers
    • Firefighters
    • EMS Agency Investigations
    • Criminal Defense
    • CalPERS Appeals
  • Our Team
  • Classes
  • Media
    • Bulletins
    • RLS in the News
  • Resources
    • Links
    • Resources
    • Newsletters
  • Clients
  • Career Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer

RLS Principal Timothy K. Talbot Defends Pension Rights Before California Supreme Court

May 5, 2020 by Hien Nguyen

On May 5, 2020, Timothy K. Talbot argued to the State’s highest court for the continued protection of public employees’ pension benefits which existed prior to the Legislature’s enactment of PEPRA. The highly-anticipated pension case, entitled Alameda County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association, et al. v. Alameda County Employees’ Retirement Association, et al., has the potential to impact the pension benefits promised to each public employee across the entire state.

As most of our clients are aware, PEPRA significantly reduced pension benefits for both “future” and “classic” employees, to varying degrees. Following the enactment of PEPRA, numerous pension systems revised their existing policies to exclude particular pay items from the calculation of an employee’s pension benefit. Contra Costa County County’s retirement system excluded vacation sold at termination (“terminal pay”), annual leave cash-outs, and on-call pay, among other items. Importantly, the retirement system excluded these pay items for both “future” and “classic” employees. Pursuant to long-established case law, classic employees have a “vested” right to the continuation of these pension benefits, as set forth in numerous court decisions establishing a doctrine known as the “California Rule.” The “California Rule” states generally that the pension benefits offered and accepted at an employee’s commencement of employment cannot be reduced absent being off-set by a “comparable new advantage.” Additionally, employees in Contra Costa County had been told by both their employers and the retirement system that such pay items would be included in their pension calculation for over a decade. Moreover, employers and employees paid the retirement system pension contributions based on the inclusion of those pay items.

In 2012, on behalf of the Contra Costa County DSA, RLS filed the first lawsuit in the State challenging PEPRA, arguing that the retirement system’s revocation of these benefits for classic employees constituted an unconstitutional impairment of vested pension rights, or at the very least, classic employees should retain these pay items in their pension calculation based on an equitable doctrine called “estoppel,” because excluding such benefits now would be unjust. Similar lawsuits filed on behalf of other public employee unions in Contra Costa and other counties were consolidated with the Contra Costa County DSA’s lawsuit.

The trial court found that the inclusion of such pay items was not a “vested” right. However, the trial court found that classic employees should retain these pay items in their pension calculation based on estoppel. The unions appealed. The Court of Appeal mostly agreed with the trial court, but upheld a broader award of estoppel to classic employees, representing a major win for these clients. Following this ruling, the State of California appealed.

Before the Supreme Court, the State argued that such pension cuts are necessary to preserve the fiscal stability of both the state and local governments, that the inclusion of such pay items constituted unlawful “pension spiking” that was never allowable, and therefore, were never “vested.” The State claimed that employees could not have a reasonable expectation to the continuation of these lawful benefits. The State also argued that the Court of Appeal’s allowance of “estoppel” should be overturned because the promises made to employees were made before PEPRA, and that estoppel cannot be used to compel a government agency to violate the law – in this case PEPRA.

In response, in addition to asserting the legality of the inclusion of these existing pay items prior to PEPRA, Tim focused the Court’s attention on the promises made to employees relative to their pension benefits, the long-term nature of those promises, and the unique importance of that promise to every employee who chooses to serve a career in public service. Particularly, Tim pointed out that a public employee’s pension is the primary inducement offered by an employer to attract employees, and that denying employees those benefits now, after public service has been rendered (which cannot be subsequently undone), amounts to an unfair windfall to employers in the form of work provided for less compensation than originally agreed. Put simply, employees entered into a valid contract for specified pension benefits, and provided the work asked of them. Tim cited prior Supreme Court decisions and asserted that changing the compensation owed, after service had been rendered, is unlawful and unjust.

It is not known when the Court will ultimately decide the case. In the meantime, however, our clients and all other public employees should find comfort in the fact that their important interests were well-represented before the highest Court in the State.

Disclaimer: Case law and analysis can change over time. The information in this article is accurate as of the date the article was written and should not constitute legal advice. Always consult with an attorney.

Filed Under: Bulletins Tagged With: timothy-k-talbot

Consultation Form

Offices across California to serve you.
Contact us now to schedule a consultation.
Contact form not loading? Click here!
Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC publishes this website as a service to our clients and other friends for informational purposes only. It is not intended to be used as a substitute for specific legal advice or opinions, and the transmission of information through this website is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship between sender and receiver. Internet subscribers and online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

© 2023 Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC. All Rights Reserved. | Disclaimer

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
Do not sell my personal information.
Cookie settingsACCEPTREJECT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT
  • Contact Us

  • News Alerts

Official logo for Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver
Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver Logo
  • About Us
  • Practice Areas
    ▼
    • Labor Representation
    • Civil Litigation
    • Personal Injury
      ▼
      • Example of Case Results
    • Workers’ Compensation
    • Maritime Law
    • Estate Planning
    • DOE Security Clearance Hearings
    • Peace Officers
    • Firefighters
    • EMS Agency Investigations
    • Criminal Defense
    • CalPERS Appeals
  • Our Team
  • Classes
  • Media
    ▼
    • Bulletins
    • RLS in the News
  • Resources
    ▼
    • Links
    • Resources
    • Newsletters
  • Clients
  • Career Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer
Hotline phone numbers. Northern California: 925-609-1699. Southern California: 310-393-1486.