| A last resort |
|
|
| Written by Greg Connolly - Argonaut | ||||||
| Monday, 08 February 2010 | ||||||
|
Idaho Supreme Court is only remaining option for retiree suit No decisions have been made regarding further action after last week’s decision to deny a motion to reconsider a suit brought forth by nearly 300 retirees from the University of Idaho. “I don’t know for sure what will happen,” said Ron Landeck, the Moscow attorney representing the retirees. He said the next step would be to bring the matter to the Idaho Supreme Court. The members of the suit have close to a month to decide whether or not they want to make that move. The class-action suit stems from a disagreement between the retirees and UI. The retirees — who signed contracts in 1999 and 2003 to retire early — want medical and life insurance benefits that are written into the contracts. The benefits were reduced following a recommendation by a 2005 task force, which was commissioned by then-president Timothy White to find ways to save money, Landeck said. The university cited a preamble clause regarding employee health and life insurance in its defense, which says the Board of Regents has the right to change or modify the terms of retirement benefits in the preamble of section 3730 of the Employee Handbook. “The regents reserve the right to amend, modify or terminate any benefit in part or in its entirety at any time,” according to section 55.41 of the current manual. A statement from UI said the decision to deny the motion for reconsideration was appreciated and that the ruling is consistent with UI’s policy to modify employment benefits and benefits programs for retirees. “Decisions about how the university allocates its resources can be difficult, and we know that they do impact our employees and our retirees, which is why we take seriously the stewardship of our resources,” the statement said. “When these people went through the process, there was no mention of the preamble,” Landeck said. “There is no reference to the preamble in their contract.” “There are approximately 120 employees in the first group of retirees who signed contracts in 1999 for the Early Retirement Incentive Program,” Landeck said. The group consists of both professors and staff members who met the rule of 80 — if their age and number of years of service add up to 80 or higher, then they are eligible for retirement. The 2003 group signed contracts to be a part of the Voluntary Separation and Retirement Opportunities Program. The set of contracts was similar to the first, though the rule of 80 was slightly relaxed to encourage participation. The second group had close to 150 members, Landeck said. “Both sets of contracts said retirees were entitled to earn benefits under existing UI policy,” Landeck said retirees were entitled to earn benefits under existing UI policy,” Landeck said. In the trial, Landeck used a video of a 2002 meeting as evidence. UI’s legal counsel at the time, Georgia Yuan, drafted both sets of contracts. During the meeting, she was asked what would stop the university from taking away the benefits and said a contractual obligation would stop UI from taking them. The 2005 task force determined that life insurance coverage for retirees be reduced to $10,000, and all retirees should pay a part of their medical insurance premium. The contracts signed in 1999 and 2003 reflect the older retiree benefits package, which has UI paying medical premiums and a life insurance payout equal to the salary at the time of retirement. Under that plan, the payout was reduced to 75 percent of the salary at age 65 as the time of retirement, and 50 percent at age 70. “The reduction in life insurance is a great savings to the university,” Landeck said.  Add as favorites (17) | Views: 1125
Write Comment
|
||||||
