Texas Supreme Court holds pension board’s amendment to deferred retirement option account was not unconstitutional
Eddington v Dallas Police and Fire Penson Systems, et al., 17-0058, (Tex. March 8, 2019)
This is a statutory construction case where the Texas Supreme Court held the City of Dallas’s amendment to its pension plan did not violate the Texas Constitution.
Article XVI, Section 66 of the Texas Constitution prohibits the reduction of benefits in certain local public retirement plans. The Dallas Police and Fire Pension System (“the System”) amended its pension plan to reduce the interest rate paid on Deferred Retirement Option Plan (“DROP”) accounts. After a member is eligible for retirement, the member can choose to continue working and, when leaving active service, draw a higher monthly annuity. However, a member’s annuity is fixed at retirement age and does not increase with continued service. While a member continues to work, the System created the DROP option allowing monthly credits to his DROP account, accessible upon leaving active service. In other words, members working past retirement eligibility can choose between a higher annuity on leaving active service, or a lower annuity plus a forced savings account. The petitioners sued, asserting the amendment to the changed interest rate was unconstitutional. The trial court and appellate court denied petitioners relief.
After analyzing the text of Section 66 and the uncontested facts asserted, the Court held that reducing the interest rate that as-yet-unearned DROP payments will bear does not affect a benefit accrued or granted to employees. Interest already credited to DROP accounts is not impacted. The reduction in DROP account interest is prospective only. Section 66(d) protects “accrued” benefits only. Accrued benefits are those that have been earned by service, not those that may be earned by future service.
Finally, the Court held the trial court did not err in excluding the legislative history evidence submitted and the fiscal notes of the Legislative Budget Board. The Court reasoned that while the judiciary can consider such information, those are construction aides. Courts should rely heavily on the literal text. The Court determined the text of Section 66 is plain as it affects the parties, so no error was made by the trial court.
If you would like to read this opinion, click here. Chief Justice Hecht delivered the opinion of the Court. Justice Guzman and Justice Brown not sitting. The docket page with attorney information can be found here.