The State Retirement Board discriminated against teachers who obtained extra income for part-time school jobs, but it did not act illegally, the Utah Supreme Court has ruled.
The justices, in a 5-0 decision released Monday, upheld a 3rd District judge's 1987 dismissal of the civil complaint by 18 teachers who sought refunds for themselves and other Utah Education Association members."We conclude the trial court correctly ruled the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for relief based upon a denial of equal protection under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution," Justice Daniel Stewart wrote for the unanimous court.
The suit stemmed from the State Retirement Board's pre-1985 policy of taking pension contributions out of teachers' income derived from coaching, drivers' education instruction and career ladder work and other part-time employment.
Despite increased deductions for that "secondary income," teachers under the old law were not given extra retirement benefits.
UEA attorney Michael McCoy, in arguments before the high court last May, contended the state "took the money illegally. That's just extra money (teachers) paid into the system that goes to somebody else."
But Mark Madsen, representing the Retirement Board, countered the admittedly "unfair" practice was halted in 1985 when the law was changed so all income during the final five years of employment was used in calculating retirement benefits.
Prior to the change, some teachers requested and received refunds of the excess deductions. But others did not apply before the 1985 change, which prohibited refunds.
The UEA members said that disparity violated some teachers' constitutional rights. But the Supreme Court disagreed.
"While it appears reasonably clear there is a discrimination against the plaintiffs in the sense that they have not been able to obtain a refund of contributions on secondary income," Stewart said, "that does not demonstrate the existence of a denial of equal protection."
He said the discrimination "is not unreasonable," based on the retirement board's claim the retirement benefits will be enhanced for those teachers under the new law.
The UEA failed to disprove that claim, the court said.