Oregon retired police officers do not have a property interest in continuing in the health insurance plan available to police officers on active duty

Oregon retired police officers do not have a property interest in continuing in the health insurance plan available to police officers on active duty
Doyle v City of Medford, USCA, 9th Circuit, No. 09-16037

Although the City of Medford, Oregon did not provide health insurance coverage to its retired police officers upon their retirement, the retirees could elect to remain covered in the City’s plan for 18 months after their retirement under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, COBRA, 29 U.S.C. §§1161-1168.

After that 18-month period, the retired police officer could enroll in the Oregon Public Employees Retirement System Health Insurance Program. The City made employer contributions to the Retirement System’s Health Insurance Program.

Ronald Doyle and other retired police officers sued the City and its City Manager, Michael Dyal, contending that they should be provide with the same health insurance coverage available to active police officers pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement between the City and the employee organization representing the police officers upon their retirement.

The US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, ruled that the City of Medford’s decision to deny “active employee” health insurance coverage to its retired police officers did not violate their due process rights as Oregon Revised Statutes §243.303 did not create a property interest in having such health insurance coverage continue into retirement. Accordingly, said the court, the retired police officers lacked a legally protected property interest to the health insurance benefits available to active City police officers under the controlling collective bargaining agreement.

Noting that §243.303 provides that “A local government must make health insurance coverage available to retirees only if the government offers such coverage to current officers and employees,” the Circuit Court held that such a provision did not bar a jurisdiction from considering “real-world circumstances” that could excuse its obligation to cover retirees, citing Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748.

In contrast, in Armistead v Vernitron Corp., 944 F.2d 1287, the Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, affirmed a lower court ruling that held that when a collective bargaining agreement is intended to give retirees with lifetime health and life insurance benefits, such benefits were not subject to unilateral termination.

N.B. “Participating employers” in the State's Employee Health Insurance Plan must allow employees to continue in the plan upon retirement [§163.4, Civil Service Law] and are required to pay "not less than fifty percentum of the cost of ... the coverage of its employees and retired employees ... [and] not less than thirty-five percentum ... for the coverage of dependents of employees and retired employees..." [§167.2, Civil Service Law].

The Doyle decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13582283851357318805&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Books from the Public Employment Law Press

Books from the Public Employment Law Press

For information about PELP's e-book Layoff, Preferred Lists and Reinstatement of public employees in New York, go to: http://nylayoff.blogspot.com/

For information about PELP's The Discipline Book, now available in both an e-book and in a softcover format, go to: http://booklocker.com/books/3449.html

For information about PELP's e-book Disability Retirement and General Municipal Law Sections 207-a/c go to: http://booklocker.com/books/3916.html

An individual must prove his or her case by a “preponderance of the evidence” in order to prevail at a “name-clearing hearing”

An individual must prove his or her case by a “preponderance of the evidence” in order to prevail at a “name-clearing hearing”
Casale v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 2010 NY Slip Op 06218, decided on July 27, 2010, Appellate Division, First Department

Nicholas Casale, claiming that certain statements in the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's letter to him terminating his employment* characterizing his actions as “dishonest” were false, demanded a name-clearing hearing.**

The hearing officer ruled that Casale was required to prove that the Authority’s statements to which he objected were false by a preponderance of the evidence and that Casale failed to meet this test.

The hearing officer found that Casle had repeatedly mischaracterized his source of information in an investigation of corruption as a confidential informant, concluding that “this conduct was dishonest.”

The Appellate Division said that such a determination by a hearing officer is not foreclosed as a matter of law even if the hearing officer believed that Casale was acting to benefit the Authority rather than for his own personal gain. The court said that the hearing officer is to determine the issue of an employee's dishonesty “with reference to the employer's general business or the employee's own functions and that is precisely what occurred here.”

Nor, said the court, did the hearing officer exceed his jurisdiction in "finding that petitioner engaged in a pattern of dishonesty." The terms of the stipulation governing the name-clearing hearing did not limit the inquiry to the fabrication of the existence of a confidential informant.

* Although Casale’s tenure status is not indicated in the decision, typically New York courts have directed "name-clearing hearings" for probationary employees and for employee without tenure who allege that they have been "stigmatized" as a result of “State action” and the employer has made such "stigmatizing" information public.

** A name clearing hearing serves only one purpose - to provide the individual with an opportunity to clear his or her “good name and reputation” in situations where he or she alleges that information of a stigmatizing nature has been made public by his or her former employer. Courts have held that the internal disclosure of allegedly stigmatizing reasons for the discharge or demotion of an employee to the individual and, or, to agency administrators “having a right to know” does not constitute a public disclosure of such information and thus a name-clearing hearing" is not required because of such intra-agency communications.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_06218.htm