Employee Benefits Litigation
Employee Benefits Litigation
Our Employee Benefits Litigation practice regularly represents and counsels both public and private clients, offering a wide range of litigation and advisory services related to retirement and other benefits-related plans and plan sponsors. This includes alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, benefit claims and disability retirement disputes, actuarial funding challenges, Public Records Act demands, open meeting law compliance demands, cybersecurity, insurance, and general contract matters—particularly those involving service providers to the plan. We have substantive experience in litigation involving the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the County Employees' Retirement Law of 1937 (CERL), the Public Employees’ Retirement Law (PERL), the California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS), and the statutory and Constitutional provisions governing other “independent” city, county, and special district retirement plans.
We understand the fiduciary challenges that the governing boards and/or committees of retirement and other benefit plans face in administering plans, as well as the challenges that plan sponsors face in designing and funding retirement plans. We collaborate with our employee benefits attorneys, who regularly provide fiduciary, governance, plan design, benefit claims, and tax advice regarding retirement plans and plan sponsors. Our thoughtful, practical, and nuanced legal advice often helps clients avoid litigation. But when disputes arise, our record speaks for itself, as we have successfully represented our clients in administrative proceedings, in federal and state courts, including published appellate decisions on novel and precedent-setting legal issues, and in mediations and arbitrations.
Appellate Cases
- Preservation of Benefit Plan Retirees Association, et al. v. City of San Jose, et al. 2024 WL 836536 (Cal.App. 6 Dist., 2024) as modified on denial of rehearing (March 26, 2024) (upholding city’s refusal to grant, and retirement board’s refusal to pay, pension benefits in excess of federal tax limits
- Tobin v. City of San Jose et al. 2024 WL 836537 (Cal. App. 6 Dist., 2024), as modified on denial of rehearing (March 26, 2024) (affirming dismissal of alternative estoppel and fiduciary claims to receive benefits in excess of federal tax limits based on terms of release agreement between plaintiff and city)
- O’Neal, et al. v. Stanislaus County Employees’ Retirement Association, 2021 WL 5817325 (Cal. Ct. App., Dec. 8, 2021, No. F079201), review denied (Mar. 16, 2022) (affirming complete defense verdict following two week bench trial in action challenging retirement board’s actuarial and funding decisions)
- Imperial County Sheriffs’ Association et. al. v. Imperial County et al. 87 Cal.App.5th 898 (2021) (affirming in part order denying certification of single putative class consisting of PEPRA and non-PEPRA union employees and remanding for further proceedings)
- O’Neal, et al. v. Stanislaus County Employees’ Retirement Association, 8 Cal.App.5th 1184 (2017) (finding retirement board’s actuarial and funding decisions did not violate California law)
- Sonoma County Association of Retired Employees v. Sonoma County, 708 F.3d 1109, 1112 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming dismissal of implied vested right claim to retiree health benefits by unrepresented employees)
Trial Court and Administrative Proceedings
- Blanco v. California Public Employees’ Retirement System, OAH Case No. 2021030825 (2022) (successfully challenged exclusion of out-of-class pay from State member’s special compensation with decision adopted by CalPERS Board and then cited in published decision reversing denial of writ petition in Hale v. California Pub. Employees’ Ret. Sys., 82 Cal.App.5th 764 (2022))
- Coleman v. East Bay Municipal Utility District, et al. Alameda Superior Court Case No. 22CV005462 (2022) appeal dismissed (dismissing lawsuit alleging right to service credit under reciprocity provision in municipal ordinance based on estoppel and quasi-contract theories)
- In the Matter of the Appeal of Membership Determination of Humboldt State University Board of Directors, et al. OAH Case No. 2017-0079 (2017) (challenging CalPERS’ finding that certain employees were not entitled to retirement benefits under university’s CalPERS’s contract; settled with CalPERS following three day hearing and obtained all relief sought)
- IHC Health Servs., Inc. v. Eskaton Properties, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-3-DN, 2016 WL 4769342 (D. Utah Sept. 13, 2016) (granting ERISA health plan’s motion transferring venue from Utah to California in dispute)
- Inland Valley Development Agency, et. al. v. Michael Cohen, et. al. Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2016-80002374-CU-WM-GDS (2016) (order forcing DOF to release funds needed to pay pension liabilities of former participating employer)
- Retiree Support Group of Contra Costa County v. Contra Costa County No. 12–cv–00944–JST (MEJ) (N.D. Cal. 2009) (represented County in dispute arising from changes to retiree health benefits; settled on favorable terms and successfully opposed motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction brought by county union seeking to enjoin final approval of settlement at 2016 WL 4080294 (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2016))
- George Mathews, et al. v. Ventura County Employees’ Retirement Association, et al. Ventura County Superior Court Case No. CIV 220607 (2006) (successfully defended county in class action lawsuit brought by current and former plan members alleging vested right to pension benefits)
Key Contacts
News & Resources
CalPERS Can’t Apply Rule Limiting PERSability of Special Compensation To State Members, Court of Appeal Rules
Court of Appeal rules that CalPERS can’t apply rule limiting PERSability of special compensation to State members.
New California Court of Appeal Decision Upholds Decisions Made By County Retirement System During Great Recession
O’Neal v. StanCERA, et al. provides helpful guidance to public retirement boards about the considerations relevant to the discharge of their fiduciary duties.
California Supreme Court Upholds Pension Reform Changes As Constitutional
The California Supreme Court held that changes to pension plans made by California's pension reform legislation affecting employees hired prior to the effective date of that legislation met Contract Clause requirements and did not violate those employees' Constitutional rights.