Linda M. Ross

Ross joined Renne Public Law Group--the firm started by former San Francisco City Attorney Louise H. Renne--as an of counsel attorney at the firm's founding and was made partner in February 2020. She was formerly chief labor attorney for San Francisco, in charge of a 20-person legal team, and served as general counsel to the mayor's office.

Her expertise on pension reform issues led her to represent one of the petitioners in oral argument before the state Supreme Court on May 5, 2020, in a vested rights case where the state Legislature seeks to rein in pension "spiking" by which public employees increased their retirement payouts by padding their final year or years of compensation on the job. Alameda County Deputy Sheriff's Association v. Alameda County Employees' Retirement Association, S247095 (Ca. S. Ct., petition granted Feb. 16, 2018).

Ross, representing a government agency in Contra Costa County, lined up with Gov. Gavin Newsom's office, which argued that the Legislature never intended pension spiking to be a vested right.

"Employers are paying the higher costs of spiking, and the costs are significant," Ross said.

She has been in the pension reform fight for years. After the state high court delivered its long awaited opinion in the Cal Fire case in 2019, affirming reform by holding that the Legislature's elimination of the "air time" benefit--which let public employers buy up to five years of service credit not based on time worked--did not infringe on the vested rights of current employees, Ross filed an amicus brief urging the justices to apply the Cal Fire principles to the current case. Cal Fire Local 2881 v. CalPERS, S239958 (Ca. S. Ct. petition granted April 12, 2017).

Ross thinks the court will do just that. "Once again, as in Cal Fire, the Supreme Court will find that there was no vested right to the pay items at issue in the case," she predicted.

She believes the court--whose ruling is due in early August--will not reach the broader issue of the California Rule against infringing on vested pension rights. "As in Cal Fire, there were questions from the justices about the contours of the so-called California Rule, but as in Cal Fire, those issues will not be decided in this case. Once the court determines that there was no vested right to begin with, it will not decide the issue of when the state can modify a vested right."

Ross said awaiting the decision isn't stressful. "It's not nerve-wracking because I have a high degree of confidence the court will rule there is no vested right." Still, she cautioned, speaking shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court surprised many by ruling for gay rights and against President Trump's plan to dismantle DACA, "It's really best not to assume."

-- John Roemer