Fom the San Francisco Chronicle
Bob Egelko
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
A state appeals court has revived a lawsuit by retired employees of the University of California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory over UC's decision in 2008 to switch their health insurance to a private plan that covered less and cost more.
The four retirees presented evidence that the university had promised them lifetime health coverage and can try to prove that the shift to a lesser plan was a breach of contract, the First District Court of San Francisco ruled Monday. The court reversed an Alameda County judge's decision to dismiss the suit.
Although they have not filed a class-action suit on behalf of all retired lab employees, Dov Grunschlag, a lawyer for the four retirees, predicted that their case would lead to reinstatement of all Livermore retirees' UC health coverage.
The ruling "reaffirms that California law will protect the right of people who worked for public entities for many years to continue receiving the health coverage that was promised to them once they retired," Grunschlag said.
The university said it remains hopeful of winning when the case goes to trial.
The plaintiffs worked at Livermore for decades and had retired before 2007, when UC transferred management of the lab to a partnership called Lawrence Livermore National Security, which includes the university and private companies.
UC then terminated the retirees' government-sponsored health insurance and assured them that they would receive equivalent coverage from the new managers. But the court said the new plan is inferior and more expensive. Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch dismissed the suit in May 2011, saying it was unclear that the university had ever promised the employees lifetime coverage - and that even if such a promise was made, it was not legally binding.
But later last year, the state Supreme Court ruled in an Orange County case that public employees could rely on a government agency's express or implied promise of future health benefits.
In this case, the appeals court cited such statements as an assurance in a 1979 UC retirement system handbook that employees with five years of service have "a non-forfeitable (vested) right to a retirement benefit" including university contributions.
A number of UC publications "contain language that could be read as implying a commitment to provide these benefits throughout retirement," said Presiding Justice Barbara Jones in the 3-0 ruling.
The ruling can be viewed at www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/A132778.PDF
Bob Egelko
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
A state appeals court has revived a lawsuit by retired employees of the University of California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory over UC's decision in 2008 to switch their health insurance to a private plan that covered less and cost more.
The four retirees presented evidence that the university had promised them lifetime health coverage and can try to prove that the shift to a lesser plan was a breach of contract, the First District Court of San Francisco ruled Monday. The court reversed an Alameda County judge's decision to dismiss the suit.
Although they have not filed a class-action suit on behalf of all retired lab employees, Dov Grunschlag, a lawyer for the four retirees, predicted that their case would lead to reinstatement of all Livermore retirees' UC health coverage.
The ruling "reaffirms that California law will protect the right of people who worked for public entities for many years to continue receiving the health coverage that was promised to them once they retired," Grunschlag said.
The university said it remains hopeful of winning when the case goes to trial.
The plaintiffs worked at Livermore for decades and had retired before 2007, when UC transferred management of the lab to a partnership called Lawrence Livermore National Security, which includes the university and private companies.
UC then terminated the retirees' government-sponsored health insurance and assured them that they would receive equivalent coverage from the new managers. But the court said the new plan is inferior and more expensive. Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch dismissed the suit in May 2011, saying it was unclear that the university had ever promised the employees lifetime coverage - and that even if such a promise was made, it was not legally binding.
But later last year, the state Supreme Court ruled in an Orange County case that public employees could rely on a government agency's express or implied promise of future health benefits.
In this case, the appeals court cited such statements as an assurance in a 1979 UC retirement system handbook that employees with five years of service have "a non-forfeitable (vested) right to a retirement benefit" including university contributions.
A number of UC publications "contain language that could be read as implying a commitment to provide these benefits throughout retirement," said Presiding Justice Barbara Jones in the 3-0 ruling.
The ruling can be viewed at www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/A132778.PDF
Comments
We were all under the illusion that we were UC employees, instead we were red-headed step kids for hire. I know that until 2007 that I was working under the assumption that both the retirement and the health care were vested entities. Until that time you didn't see the lab putting out in bold print that health benefits were a per site thing. Then again, until 2007 we believed we were UC employees.
Mara, Brown and Newsom understand this.
LLNS has really become a joke.
If UC can keep their lawyers stalling two guys who have what looks like a slam dung win against a dysfunctional labs, how long do you think these retirees will have to wait? They'll be long gone before any legal conclusions ever result. That is something the UC and the labs' management are great at gaming. These people have no morals or ethics. They are truly evil.
January 6, 2013 9:13 PM
It will be a cold day in hell when the folks that were responsible for Todd's death have any remorse, let alone apologize to the victim's wife for what they did...Pete Nanos.
Are these comments followed by "...[Specific Name]" intended etc. etc.
Lab It Specialist, Orange County Computer Services, OC IT services, Schuylab, CIS,
and Reference Labs IT services, Doctors Office computer services, HL7, EMR and LIS services in OC,
Bussiness IT services in Orange County, IT services for OC Healthcare organizations,
Networking and troubleshooting servers and workstations in Anaheim, Exchange Email and Outlook professional in OC,
Thin clients and Terminal Server expert in Irvine,
computer Remote support assistance in Costa Mesa
Lab IT services OC
Lab IT Services LA
Lab IT services Los Angeles
Lab IT services Orange County
Lab Computer services LA
Lab computer Services OC
Lab computer Services Orange County
Lab computer Services Los Angeles
IT service management is built around processes and practices to facilitate gauges the end-to-end release of
IT solutions more exactly than their development.ITSM measures the operational efficiency of a solution in
get-together the service level expectations of the end-user and how technical
IT manages these systems to liberate the desired service level.
Lab IT services OC
Lab IT Services LA
Lab IT services Los Angeles
Lab IT services Orange County
Lab Computer services LA
Lab computer Services OC
Lab computer Services Orange County
Lab computer Services Los Angeles