State high court considers pension benefits dispute

The California Supreme Court considered arguments Tuesday over a 2013 law that reduced some retirees' pension benefits in what attorneys for the state described as permitting "abusive practices" that cost taxpayers a lot of money in liabilities.

Two years ago, a 1st District Court of Appeal panel issued a mixed opinion regarding whether the benefits of Alameda, Contra Costa and Merced county employees might violate the state Constitution. The Alameda County Deputy Sheriffs' Association appealed.

Governors and counties have been pushing to limit their pension liabilities, and the case has been pending since then.

Rei R. Onishi, Gov. Gavin Newsom's deputy legal affairs secretary, argued the system allows union employees to artificially inflate their salaries during the last years of employment by taking cash payments that counted toward retirement benefits.

The practice, which Onishi labeled "pension spiking," is illegal and so employees have no right to expect the extra retirement benefits, he told the justices.

David E. Mastagni, a partner with Mastagni Holstedt APC in Sacramento who represents the association, told the justices the county made those promises to prospective employees to entice them to work for the sheriff's department in the first place.

"One person's pension spiking is another person's expectation of a promise," he said. Alameda County Deputy Sheriffs' Association et al. v. Alameda County Employees' Retirement Association et al., S247095 (S. Ct., petition filed Feb. 16, 2018).

The legal battle, one of several in state courts, has higher stakes now that California is facing severe budget troubles due shutdowns because of the COVID-19 virus.

Oral arguments were livestreamed, with a visual setup similar to "The Brady Bunch" or "Hollywood Squares." The justices were in seven of the boxes. The attorney making an argument took up an eighth square and a timer was in the ninth.

California Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye and Justice Carol A. Corrigan, who asked questions from the court's San Francisco chambers, each wore masks. The other justices and attorneys, working from home, did not.

The reason for the masks is because of a San Francisco city ordinance that requires workers doing "essential government functions" to wear a face covering at the workplace whenever they are "in any room or enclosed area when other people (except for members of the person's own household or residence) are present."

The court took arguments under submission.