FEA Suit on Mandatory Retirement Contribution (Pay Cut)

Below you will see an FEA report, a news media report, and links to other news
reports on the legal battle over cuts to our pay that the legislature and
governor approved this past spring. This is one of the reasons that the UFF is affiliated
with the Florida Education Association (FEA) and other organizations. Most
observers expect the battle over this spring’s legislated 3% pay cut (the newly
mandated contribution to retirement) to end up in the Supreme Court. The
Meyer-Brooks law firm arguing on behalf of state employees (the same firm that
handled our case in the layoffs announced in 2009) does not work cheap, and the
combined resources of all FEA affiliate’s members, including us, will ensure
that Ron Meyer can take the case as far as necessary. There is no certainty of
success, but it is encouraging to know that a good fight is being fought. As
the bumper sticker says, “UFF takes sides, yours.”

Please join UFF if you are not already a member.
Membership forms are available at www.uff-fsu.org

If you are a member, thank you for your support!

Retirement Hearing
Update from the Florida Education Association:

Yesterday, Circuit Court Judge Jackie Fulford heard oral
arguments in the retirement lawsuit filed by the Florida Education Association.
The FEA is seeking to stop the 3 percent pay cut on teachers, school employees
and other workers imposed by the Florida Legislature and signed by Gov. Rick
Scott.

Our lawyers, led by Ron Meyer, told the judge that
lawmakers did not have the authority to make fundamental changes to pensions of
current state employees, arguing that the changes break a contract with state
employees and violate their constitutional right to collective bargaining. The
lawsuit further contends that the actions by the Legislature to reduce the
cost-of-living benefits of those employees were also unconstitutional.

During the hearing, Judge Fulford said the decision to cut state and local government
workers pay 3 percent and shift the money to the state’s pension fund broke the
state’s contract with employees. What remains at issue in the case is whether
that broken contract is illegal.

The state legal team argued that the legislature was entitled to make the changes, which it termed “modifications,” under its budgetary authority and they denied the
changes violated the collective bargaining rights of state workers when it made
the changes without renegotiating employee contracts.

The state team faced a number of pointed questions from
the Judge about the cuts made to the cost of living adjustment (known as COLA)
and about the requirement that employees contribute 3 percent of their
salaries.

At one point, Judge Fulford, in an unusual move, came
down from the bench to better view and ultimately challenge the state’s
interpretation of a spreadsheet that it said shows that benefits accrued by one
of the plaintiffs before the new law took effect would not change. Contrary to
the state’s arguments, Judge Fulford stated the sheets showed that under the
changes, the worker would have to pay more in contributions and receive less
money when he retired. She also stated that workers already in the system were
counting on the benefits promised by the retirement system at the time they
were hired.

Ron Meyer argued the changes at issue in the case
“are systemic, substantive changes, and to try and characterize that as
simply changing a benefit prospectively just does violence to English
language.”

Judge Fulford did not indicate when she intends to issue
a ruling on the case. We will continue to keep you updated on our multiple
legal challenges.

JUDGE SOUNDS SKEPTICAL OF PENSION PLAN CHANGES

By BRANDON LARRABEE

THE NEWS SERVICE OF FLORIDA

THE CAPITAL, TALLAHASSEE, October 26, 2011……….A judge tasked with
deciding the fate of an overhaul of the state’s pension plan voiced extreme
skepticism about the plan Wednesday, endangering one of the key accomplishments
of the last legislative session and threatening to blow a nearly billion-dollar
hole in the current budget.

In one particularly pointed exchange, Circuit Court Judge Jackie Fulford
forcefully pressed a lawyer for the state on how the changes to the pension
plan, including a requirement that employees contribute 3 percent of their pay
to their retirement and the elimination of cost-of-living adjustments for any
work after June 30, 2011, would affect one of the state employees suing over
the revamp.

“He’s paying more, getting less and in fact, the COLA does change. …
It’s like you’re punishing him for continuing to work,” said Fulford, who
took the rare step of leaving the bench to point to a display on the wall while
making her points.

The legal questions about the changes to the pension plan revolve around
whether the changes to the program break a portion of the law declaring the
system a contractual obligation between the state and its employees.

The employees and unions suing the state contend that the changes go too far.
Attorneys defending the plan say it falls within the bounds of a 1981 Florida
Supreme Court decision allowing the Legislature to alter pensions as long as it
only does so with benefits earned after the law takes effect.

“It happens only in the future,” said David Godofsky. “It
affects only the benefits earned in the future.”

But Ron Meyer, a lawyer for the Florida Education Association, argued that
asking employees to contribute some of their income “went to the very
heart and structure of the pension plan.” And the complicated formula for
figuring out the cost-of-living adjustments essentially lowers the COLA percentage
for current employees.

Meyer said the Legislature would have been within its rights to make those
changes for new employees alone.

“But the state got greedy,” he told Fulford. “The state wanted
more money.”

Under the plan approved by the Legislature earlier this year, cost-of-living
increases will not apply to wages earned after June 30 — leaving those
employees who worked for the state before then with a split set of benefits.
The 3 percent COLA remains in effect for benefits earned before that date, but
doesn’t apply for those earned after the cutoff.

The state will calculate the COLA for those employees by reducing the 3 percent
threshold based on how long after June 30 an employee works. That effectively
lowers the COLA for those employees, breaking the state’s agreement, Meyer and
an expert witness for the plaintiffs argued.

The state and its expert countered that the annual COLA dollar amount employees
receive will be the same as if they retired today; it simply won’t increase as
much as it would if the COLA were applied to benefits earned in the future.

“The net effect is zero on the COLA,” said Paul Zeisler, an actuary
who served as the state’s expert.

Fulford sounded skeptical. “The benefit from the COLA goes down period,
right?” she pressed Zeisler, who denied that would be the effect.

She also questioned the notion that asking employees to contribute to the plan
for the first time in more than 35 years could be compared to the changes in
the calculation of benefits the Supreme Court was weighing in the earlier case.

“But you’re not changing their benefits,” she said. “You’re
saying, ‘Give me money for it.'”

If Fulford were to strike down the changes challenged by the plaintiffs, it
could upend a key provision of the state’s drive to slice hundreds of millions
of dollars from the budget in a tough economic climate. Documents used by state
negotiators in the last legislative session showed they planned to save more
than $860 million from the employee contribution and the elimination of COLA,
much of that from current state employees.

Meyer said after the hearing that lawmakers should dip into reserves if they
have to find the money, though the sluggish economy has already eaten into
those reserves and caused state forecasters to predict another shortfall in the
fiscal year that begins July 1.

“The Legislature has demonstrated a willingness to be very creative in
hurting the workers who are employed by the state of Florida,” Meyer said.

-END-

10/26/11

Independent and Indispensable

http://www.newsserviceflorida.com

 

MORE News Clips:

Times: Florida judge: Cuts to state employees’ pay violated contract

Post: Florida judge questions state’s case for making public workers
partially pay for pensions

Current: Judges
challenges state’s attorneys as they defend pension changes

Teachers’ Union, State Battle in Court over Legislature’s Pension-Plan
Changes

Sunshine State News – Jim Turner

Circuit Court Judge
Jackie Fulford said she wasn’t going to overturn prior Florida Supreme Court
rulings, which she said allowed legislators to modify contracts. But she
disagreed with precedent being offered by the state attorneys that the courts
had

Teachers union in court to challenge pension contributions

Sun-Sentinel – Kathleen Haughney

Those benefits included a pension
plan that did not require contributions. “This went to the very heart and
structure of the actual pension plan,” said Ron Meyer, an attorney
for the Florida Education Association. “It’s a systemic change from
a

Florida judge questions state’s case for making public workers partially
pay …

Palm Beach Post

But Doug Hinson, an attorney representing
the state, said that past Florida Supreme Court rulings affirm
the Legislature’s authority over spending decisions, even those that violate a
previously approved union contract. Justices “said the Legislature

Judge skeptical of state’s pension plan overhaul

The News-Press

Attorneys defending the plan
say it falls within the bounds of a 1981 Florida Supreme Court
decision allowing the Legislature to alter pensions as long as it only
does so with benefits earned after the law takes effect. “It happens only
in the future,”

Judge questions new law requiring state workers to contribute to pension
plan

Gainesville Sun – Lloyd Dunkelberger

“They did their part and now
the state of Florida doesn’t want to,” she said. Fulford gave no
indication when she would rule on the case. Regardless of her decision, the
case is expected to eventually reach the Florida Supreme Court.
The pension law is

Judge hears Fla. retirement contribution case

MiamiHerald.comBill Kaczor

It also eliminates annual 3
percent cost-of-living increases on any pension benefits earned after it
went into effect on July 1. Fulford gave no indication when she’ll rule. The
case is expected to wind up before the Florida Supreme Court.

Unions’ attorneys argue lawmakers, Scott ‘got greedy’ – UPDATED

Tallahassee.comBill Cotterell

In addition to getting a
refund of the 3 percent pension fee paid since July 1 by more than
500000 state, county and city employees in the Florida Retirement
System, the legal challenge seeks to reinstate an annual 3 percent
cost-of-living increase in

State court to decide about pension contributions

Pensacola Business Journal

The Florida Education
Association and other union groups will argue at a 2nd Judicial Circuit Court
hearing that the mandatory 3 percent contribution required by Florida
Retirement System participants is unconstitutional. Judge Jackie Fulford will
hear

Judges tells state that cuts to state worker benefits broke contract

MiamiHerald.com (blog)

The decision to cut state and
local government workers pay 3 percent and shift the money to the state’s pension
fund broke the state’s contract with employees, a Leon County circuit judge
told lawyers for Gov. Rick Scott and the Florida Legislature on

Judge Hears Florida Retirement Contribution Case

WCTV – Bill Kaczor

Problem is… ol’ Rick
Scrooge doesn’t care about the law and doesn’t mind spending $500 an hour of
our money to stop Florida from prospering. And he won’t mind spending
twice as much of our money to damage Florida’s economy in the Supreme Court.

State strikes back in retirement case

Orlando Sentinel (blog) ‎

TALLAHASSEE– The state is in
the middle of its rebuttal to FEA lawyer Ron Meyer’s case that the state
violated contractual provisions when it made several changes to the Florida
Retirement System. Doug Hinson, an Atlanta lawyer representing the state,

Judge questions state’s arguments over changes to pensions

Sarasota Herald-Tribune

A circuit judge sharply
questioned key elements of the state’s decision to force state workers to pay 3
percent of their salaries for retirement costs, raising the prospect that she
could declare the move unconstitutional. Leon County Circuit Judge

Judge Hears Florida Retirement Contribution Case

WCTV – Bill Kaczor

The case is expected to wind
up before the Florida Supreme Court. collective bargaining rights
guaranteed by the Florida Constitution. A 1974 law that eliminated
employee contributions to the retirement fund also says pension benefits
are a contract

Judge hearing retirement contribution case

WJXT Jacksonville

The case is expected to wind
up in the Florida Supreme Court. Public employee unions filed the
lawsuit. They say the law is unconstitutional because it violates contract,
property and collective bargaining rights. Defendants include Gov. Rick Scott.

Judge to consider lawsuit about Florida retirement contributions

Sun-Sentinel – ‎Oct 26, 2011‎

The hearing on Wednesday is
expected to just be the first step on a path leading to the Florida
Supreme Court. The Florida Education Association and other unions
contend the law is unconstitutional. They say it violates public employees’
contract,

………………………………………………..

Jacqui Sisto

Communications Director

Florida Education
Association

850.201.2800

850.228.5443

www.FeaWeb.org

Stay United With the
FEA:

http://fightforflorida.com

http://www.fightbackflorida.com

 

Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.