AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

The Plaintiff, a public employee and member of the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA), applied for disability retirement after leaving her employment in 1996 due to illness. A dispute arose regarding whether her pension benefits should be calculated under PERA general member coverage plan 2 or plan 3. Plan 3 offers a higher pension multiplier but requires one and one-half years of service credit earned under the plan after its effective date of July 1, 1995. The Plaintiff had less than the required service credit under plan 3 (paras 2-5, 8).

Procedural History

• PERB Administrative Hearing: The hearing officer determined that the Plaintiff's benefits should be calculated under plan 2, and the PERB adopted this decision (para 4).
• District Court of Santa Fe County: The court reversed the PERB's decision, ordering the calculation of the Plaintiff's benefits under plan 3 (para 5).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Petitioner (PERB): Argued that the Plaintiff did not meet the one and one-half years of service credit requirement under plan 3, as stipulated in Section 10-11-26.7, and therefore her benefits should be calculated under plan 2 (paras 8, 14).
• Plaintiff-Respondent (Employee): Contended that the service credit requirement under Section 10-11-26.7 does not apply to disability retirees and that her benefits should be calculated under plan 3, which was applicable at the time of her retirement (paras 8, 11).

Legal Issues

• Does the one and one-half years of service credit requirement under Section 10-11-26.7 apply to disability retirees?
• Should the Plaintiff's pension benefits be calculated under plan 2 or plan 3?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the Plaintiff's pension benefits should be calculated under plan 3 (para 15).

Reasons

Per Alarid J. (Wechsler and Sutin JJ. concurring):

• Interpretation of Section 10-11-26.7: The Court held that the one and one-half years of service credit requirement under Section 10-11-26.7 applies only to members whose qualification for payment under plan 3 depends on Section 10-11-26.2, which governs normal retirement. Since the Plaintiff applied for early retirement due to a duty-related disability, her qualification was governed by Section 10-11-10.1, not Section 10-11-26.2. Therefore, Section 10-11-26.7 does not apply to her (paras 8-11).
• Legislative Intent: The Court reasoned that applying Section 10-11-26.7 to disability retirees would lead to absurd results, such as denying plan 3 benefits to employees who became disabled shortly after being hired under plan 3. This interpretation would contradict the Legislature's intent to provide enhanced benefits under plan 3 (para 12).
• Application of Section 10-11-8(F): The Court found that the Plaintiff met the requirements of Section 10-11-8(F), which allows members to receive benefits under the plan with the greater pension factor if they have three or more years of continuous employment with the same employer before the plan change. Since plan 3 offers a higher pension multiplier, the Plaintiff is entitled to benefits under plan 3 (para 13).
• Funding Concerns: The Court dismissed the PERB's argument about funding adequacy, noting that the Legislature likely accounted for the financial impact of disability retirements when setting contribution rates for plan 3 (para 14).

Special Concurrence by Wechsler J.:

• Wechsler J. concurred in the result but based his reasoning on Section 10-11-10.1(N), which explicitly states that the pension of a disability retiree should be calculated under the coverage plan applicable at the time of application. Since plan 3 was applicable when the Plaintiff applied for disability retirement, her benefits should be calculated under plan 3. He emphasized the plain language of Section 10-11-10.1(N) and rejected the PERB's interpretation of service credit requirements (paras 17-22).

Special Concurrence by Sutin J.:

• Sutin J. also concurred in the result but criticized the lack of legislative clarity in the statutes. He argued that the ambiguity in the interplay between normal and disability retirement provisions should be resolved in favor of the retiree. He found the PERB's position problematic and agreed that the Plaintiff should receive benefits under plan 3 (paras 23-27).