Summary: This case was filed in the Multnomah County Circuit Court as a class action on behalf of Tier One PERS members who retired between April 1, 2000 and April 1, 2004. The complaint alleges that the withholding of COLA for the years 2003 to 2006 from these retirees, constitutes a breach of their PERS contract and a violation of the Oregon wage and hour laws, in light of the Oregon Supreme Court's decision in Strunk v. PERB, 338 Or 145, 108 P3d 1058 (2005). In addition, the complaint alleges that the PERS Board's intent to pursue collection actions against such retirees for alleged overpayment of 1999 earnings would also constitute a breach of their PERS contract, would be without probable cause, and would cause irreparable harm. Finally, the complaint requests judicial review of the final order adopted by the PERS Board on January 27, 2006 outlining repayment methods for such retirees. The complaint requests that the court certify a class consisting of all Tier One members who retired between April 1, 2000 and April 1, 2004 and if the court certifies the class, the relied requested would be for the benefit of all class members.

Summary: This case was filed in the Multnomah County Circuit Court challenging the PERS Boards settlement of the City of Eugene case as a breach of its fiduciary duty and under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The case also challenges the Boards allocation of earnings to the Contingency, Gain-Loss, and Capital Preservation Reserves under the APA.

Summary: This case was filed in the Oregon Supreme Court on July 22, 2003. The Petition claims that the various, specified provisions of HB 2003 and HB 2004 are unconstitutional under the Oregon State Constitution and constitute a breach of members’ PERS contracts.

Summary: This case was filed as a class action in the Multnomah County Circuit Court on September 16, 2003, on behalf of all PERS members injured by HB 2003 and HB 2004. The complaint challenges HB 2003 and HB 2004 on the basis that the various, specified provisions of these bills constitute a breach of members’ PERS contracts and discriminate against older (Tier I) workers in violation of the Oregon State Constitution and ORS Chapter 659A.  

Summary: This case was filed on October 15, 2003, to enforce a permanent injunction issued by the U.S. District Court, in the Henderson et. al. case, on September 20, 1978. That injunction requires the PERS Board to use topped-up or male-only actuarial tables for all PERS members retiring after the date of the injunction order. The case alleges that the new actuarial equivalency factors adopted by the PERS Board violate this permanent injunction. 

Summary: This appeal was filed to challenge Marion County Circuit Judge Paul Lipscomb's decision in the City of Eugene et al. v. PERS case. Our firm represents the intervenors on behalf of the PERS coalition in this matter.  

Summary: This suit attacks the Break-In-Service (BIS) provisions of HB 2020 (2003). Under this law, PERS members who fail to perform service for a public employer for longer than six months are kicked out of PERS and placed into the PERS successor plan known as OPSRP. Under the previous law, a member had to be "out of service" for five years before they would lose PERS membership. The suit argues that by removing these members out of PERS prematurely, the law violates PERS members’ contract rights.