Featured Post

Was it constitutional for Proposition 124 to replace PSPRS' permanent benefit increases with a capped 2% COLA?

In this blog I and multiple commenters have broached the subject of the suspect constitutionality of PSPRS' replacement of the old perma...

Thursday, April 6, 2017

Operation Overlong: When PSPRS members are likely to hear anything new on the Hall case

With thanks to the anonymous reader who alerted me to via a comment in the last post, it now looks like PSPRS members have their own D-Day to look forward to.  The next Maricopa County Superior Court date for Hall v. EORP will not be until June 6, 2017 at 2:00 PM.  The court calendar lists the presiding judge as the Honorable Timothy Thomason.  The case minutes from March 28, 2017 show that the judge to whom it was originally assigned, the Honorable Randall Warner, was recused due to having a personal stake in the outcome of the case.  Judge Thomason was not appointed to the bench until 2014 and is not affected by the Hall decision.

So there we have it.  Nothing is likely to happen until that date, though I believe that PSPRS could refund excess contributions now since that matter, like the lowering of contribution rates back to 7.65%, requires no adjudication.  PSPRS just needs to turn loose of the money.  If attorneys are still haggling over an interest rate and attorneys' fees, that can be taken care of at a later date.  There is no reason to hold back the principal owed to members.

We also have to remember that PSPRS members still have to wait for the resolution of Parker v. PSPRS, the case that actually relates to PSPRS members.  As I mentioned in a previous post, Rapplyea v. PSPRS was settled less than three weeks after Fields v. EORP.  However, I think that there may be an outstanding issue in Parker, namely the status of the old permanent benefit increase (PBI) formula, that was not addressed in Hall, but this should be discussed in a future post.  Regardless, I don't believe that the refund of excess contributions and interest payments should be delayed by any outstanding PBI issues.  The contribution rate issue was resolved by the Supreme Court, and PSPRS members should see that portion of Parker resolved soon after the final decision in Hall


  1. Does anyone have thoughts on the Pima County contribution situation? The county has picked up most of the excess percentage since the rate change. That was their excuse for not giving step increases - we pick up your extra contributions. I can see the county arguing it was never deducted from us so it isn't due to be refunded. Any thoughts? Are there any other agencies in a similar boat?

    1. I had not heard of any employers doing that. It would seem to me that those excess amounts would have to of been made in your name, meaning they belong to you.

      The only thing I would suggest is to go to your contribution record on the PSPRS website. If those amounts match what was taken out of your paychecks, that would indicate to me that they will be refunded to you and not your employer. I believe that that is the official record of what the employee paid, and they would have to refund it to you and no one else. Unfortunately, the refunds look like they will be coming back through employers, so what your employer does from there is anyone's guess.

      Those are just my thoughts on the matter. Good luck.

  2. My guess is legally if you still only paid 7.65% and the county paid the difference you are out of luck as you still only paid 7.65%. Sort of a MOU an employer is not required to give a step increase or cola unfortunately

  3. This may have been covered but when they talk about interest, is it just interest added to the total refund or is it daily or monthly? Is it compounding ?


Relevant comments are welcome, but please adhere to the following rules:

1. No profanity or vulgarity.
2. No spam or advertising.
3. No copyrighted material may be posted unless you are the copyright owner.
4. Stay on topic.
5. Disagreement is fine, but please avoid ad hominem attacks.

Comments reflect the views of the authors alone, and do not reflect the opinion of this website.