Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
SUPREME COURT
CASE NO.:
COMPLETE TITLE:
OF
WISCONSIN
2012AP2490
Susan Schwegel and Susan Jaskulski,
Plaintiffs,
Wisconsin Federation of Nurses and Health
Professionals ,
Local 5001, AFT, AFL-CIO and Association of
Milwaukee
County Attorneys,
Plaintiffs-Respondents-Petitioners,
v.
Milwaukee County,
Defendant-Appellant.
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
ATTORNEYS:
For
briefs
the
by
plaintiffs-respondents-petitioners,
Jeffrey
P.
Sweetland
and
Hawks
there
Quindel,
were
S.C.,
2015 WI 12
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification.
The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No.
2012AP2490
(L.C. No.
2012CV1528)
STATE OF WISCONSIN
IN SUPREME COURT
FILED
Plaintiffs-Respondents-Petitioners,
v.
Milwaukee County,
Defendant-Appellant.
Affirmed;
We review a published
No.
Federation
of
Federation),
Nurses
the
and
Health
Association
of
Professionals
Milwaukee
County
2012AP2490
(Wisconsin
Attorneys
Part
premium
reimbursement
upon
retirement
for
Plaintiffs
claim
vested
contract
right
to
did
not
abrogate
vested
right
when
it
In
their
complaint,
plaintiffs
claim
that
MCGO
17.14(7)(ee)(1) (2011) is unconstitutional as applied to them
because it impairs a vested contract right, contrary to Article
I, Section 12 of the Wisconsin Constitution, and is a
deprivation of property without just compensation, contrary to
Article I, Section 13 of the Wisconsin Constitution.
However,
before us, plaintiffs contend they have a vested contract right,
without continuing that contention in the context of a
constitutional claim. Therefore, we too limit our discussion to
whether plaintiffs have a vested contract right to reimbursement
of Medicare Part B premiums when they retire.
2
No.
all
three
criteria
have
not
2012AP2490
fulfilled
the
requirements
I.
3
Plaintiffs
claim
that
MCGO
17.14(7)(ee)(1)
(2011)
for
Susan
Schwegel,
Susan
Jaskulski,
members
of
who
did
not
retire
by
the
dates
established
in
enjoining the
plaintiffs
when
they
retire
and
become
Medicare-
No.
eligible.
2012AP2490
plaintiffs' action.
5
instructed
of
counties
with
populations
500,000
or
more
to
of 1937.
6
the
Effective
Milwaukee
January 1,
County
1938,
Employees
Milwaukee
Retirement
County
System
created
(MCERS)
The
Ch.
Effective
January 1,
1955,
Milwaukee
County
so
under
Ordinances.
Chapter
17
of
the
Milwaukee
that
bear
on
the
dispute
first
The County
County
General
us.
One
such
No.
amendment
occurred
in
1967,
when
Milwaukee
2012AP2490
County
began
17.14(7)
(1967).
8
The
1965 shift to home rule empowered Milwaukee County "to make any
changes in such retirement system which hereafter may be deemed
necessary
or
desirable
for
the
retirement system."
Id. at 2.
laws
that
also
provided
"no
continued
such
operation
of
such
shall
operate
to
Id.
No.
In
qualify
for
1989,
the
County
continuation
of
health
cost
commenced
of
their
limited
those
2012AP2490
employees
insurance
benefits
who
upon
providing
such
coverage
employment
with
Milwaukee
for
employes
County
prior
who
to
"[t]he
or
more
employe."
years
of
creditable
17.14(7)(h) (1989).
pension
service
as
County
reimbursement
for
those
employees
who
had
met
the
"The
provisions
of
this
subsection
The
are
No.
2012AP2490
In
2011,
17.14(7)(ee)(1)
paragraph
premiums
(ee)
for
an
amendment
(2010)
that
retired
adding
restricted
addressed
employees.
language
the
payment
After
to
MCGO
applicability
of
Medicare
the
2011
Part
of
B
revision,
17.14(7)(ee)(1) read:
The provisions of section (ee) shall not apply to
members not represented by a collective bargaining
unit who retired and began receiving benefits from the
Milwaukee County Employees Retirement System after
April 1, 2011, nor to members represented by the . . .
Association of Milwaukee County Attorneys . . . who
retired
and
began
receiving
benefits
from
the
Milwaukee County Employees Retirement System after
December 31, 2011, nor to members represented by the
Federation of Nurses and Health Professionals who
retired
and
began
receiving
benefits
from
the
No.
In
summary,
17.14(7)(ee)(1),
after
the
Retirement
the
2011
Medicare
System
2012AP2490
after
amendment
Part
to
MCGO
reimbursement
on or before
order
reimbursement
for
to
secure
County
Medicare
Part
in
B
granted
plaintiffs'
motion,
concluding
The circuit
that
qualifying
N.W.2d
459
(Ct.
App.
1997),
and
Rehrauer
v.
City
of
Milwaukee, 2001 WI App 151, 246 Wis. 2d 863, 631 N.W.2d 644,
which may have conflicted with Loth v. City of Milwaukee, 2008
WI 129, 315 Wis. 2d 35, 758 N.W.2d 766.
10
No.
14
The
court
of
appeals
reversed
and
granted
2012AP2490
summary
Id., 11.
agreed with the circuit court "that Loth appears at odds with
both Welter . . . and Rehrauer . . ., and that Loth discussed
neither decision."
to
Id.
Rather,
applying
Loth,
the
court
Welter
of
or
appeals
Rehrauer."
Id.
concluded
that
premium
matured
into
reimbursement
entitlement
until
by
employees'
employees
fulfilling
We
granted
plaintiffs'
eligibility
petition
for
all
the
Id., 14.
review
and
now
prospectively
reimburse
DISCUSSION
Medicare
modifies
Part
the
County's
premiums
upon
obligation
retirement
to
for
No.
2012AP2490
service to the County, but who had not retired by the dates
established in 17.14(7)(ee)(1) (2011), impairs their vested
contract right to be reimbursed for Medicare Part B premiums
when
they
retire.
This
contention
requires
us
to
focus
on
Standard of Review
they
assert
preclude
the
enactment
of
MCGO
Spiegelberg
Browndale Int'l,
The
court
County.
of
appeals
When
we
granted
review
summary
summary
judgment
to
judgment,
we
the
circuit
court,
benefitting
from
their
discussions.
Loth, 315 Wis. 2d 35, 9; Richards v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co., 2008
WI 52, 14, 309 Wis. 2d 541, 749 N.W.2d 581.
10
No.
20
2012AP2490
answer
to
are
sufficient
join
issue,
we
examine
the
moving
Id.
Admanco, Inc.
v. 700 Stanton Drive, LLC, 2010 WI 76, 28, 326 Wis. 2d 586, 786
N.W.2d 759.
Plaintiffs
Contractual Rights
claim
MCGO
17.14(7)(ee)(1)
(2011)
are
relevant
to
(2011)
plaintiffs'
claims.
provide:
(dd) The county shall pay the full monthly cost
of providing such coverage to retired members of the
county retirement system with fifteen (15) or more
years of creditable pension service as a county
employe. . . .
(ee) Retired members of the county retirement
system who are eligible for continuing their health
insurance benefits at county expense under the
provision of this section shall be eligible for
reimbursement of the cost of their Medicare Part B
premiums, as well as the Medicare Part B premiums of
their eligible spouse and dependents.
12
They
No.
2012AP2490
question
17.14(7),
statutes,
we
in
vested
must
decide
combination
a
is
with
contractual
whether
earlier
certain
right
to
versions
session
of
laws
or
reimbursement
of
Marris v.
City of Cedarburg, 176 Wis. 2d 14, 32, 498 N.W.2d 842 (1993).
"[T]he purpose of statutory [and ordinance] interpretation is to
determine what the statute [or ordinance] means so that it may
be given its full, proper, and intended effect."
State ex rel.
Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cnty., 2004 WI 58, 44, 271
Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110.
13
No.
2012AP2490
Id., 45
common,
ordinary,
and
accepted
meaning,
except
that
Id.
MCGO
provisions
of
17.14(7)(h)
this
(1996)
subsection
are
that
provides:
considered
part
"The
of
an
MCERS,
employ
earlier
statutory
language
that
which
they
now
contend
applies
to
health
insurance.
201 of the Laws of 1937 is the starting point from which MCERS
was developed. It provided for the establishment of pension and
death benefits for county employees in counties with populations
of 500,000 or more:
Retirement
System
in
Populous
Counties;
Definitions.
In each county having a population of
13
No.
2012AP2490
"benefit
contracts."
Those
laws
provided
in
relevant
part:
(2) CONTRACTS TO ASSURE BENEFITS.
The benefits
of members . . . and of beneficiaries of deceased
members . . . shall be assured by benefit contracts as
herein provided:
(a) . . . [E]ach member and beneficiary having
such a benefit contract shall have a vested right to
such annuities and other benefits and they shall not
be diminished or impaired by subsequent legislation or
by any other means without his consent.
Ch. 138, Laws of 1945.
26
that
in
members
"shall
have
vested
right
to
such
No.
2012AP2490
The cited
Therefore, the
County
specific
home
rule
authority
over
Plaintiffs
rely
on
the
restrictive
legislative
Id.
County
could
not
eliminate
or
reduce
benefits
No.
29
MCERS
However,
had
at
nothing
the
time
of
do
with
health
to
the
home
out
Milwaukee
County's
rights
delegation,
insurance.
rule
and
2012AP2490
MCERS
was
responsibilities
under
home rule powers of MCERS contains not one word about health
insurance.
MCGO
ch.
201
(1967).
Therefore,
the
statutory
changing
its
employee
health
insurance
actually
had
no
Backing
up
just
bit
in
our
chronologic
Effective
January 1,
1955,
Milwaukee
The
provision
of
health
insurance
by
was
by
as
the
an
State.
the
MCERS
State,
action
and
did.
it
Stated
first
MCGO 17.14(8)
was
not
part
of
However,
independent
County
Milwaukee
by
did
the
not
County
County,
apply
otherwise,
to
County
health
not
one
retired
health
"Classification
and
Salary
Standardization
16
Ordinance,"
not
No.
through
the
"Milwaukee
County
Employees
2012AP2490
Retirement
System"
points out in its brief, the home rule amendment was "passed
years
before
the
County
had
any
retiree
health
insurance
program."
32
in
its
health
insurance
program.
MCGO
17.14(7)
repeal
and
recreate
section
17.14(7)
of
the
General
was not part of MCERS, which was set out in MCGO Chapter 201.
Health insurance, controlled by the County, was on a separate
and independent track from pension and death benefits addressed
in MCERS.
No.
34
insurance
to
its
employees
and
retired
rely
17.14(7)(h).
35
2012AP2490
The
heavily
on
the
employees
have
been
As we earlier mentioned,
1996
amendment
to
MCGO
amendment
to
MCGO
17.14(7)(h)
provides:
Members
who
retire
with
sufficient
pension
service credit as noted in chapter 17 of the Code, or
the appropriate labor agreement, shall be provided
with paid health insurance as noted in chapter 17 of
the Code, however such benefit shall not be funded via
the pension fund.
36
We
are
unpersuaded
that
MCGO
17.14(7)(h)
(1996)
to
pay
Medicare
Part
premiums
upon
plaintiffs'
It
Section
201.24(5.10)
does
not
provide
that
health
No.
2012AP2490
In
health
insurance
will
not
be
an
obligation
of
the
MCERS
"revisions
related
to
the
provision
of
health
insurance
(Emphasis added).
Stated
otherwise,
to
vested
benefit
once
the
revision's
contract"
employees
related
retired
reference
only
with
to
the
"an
retired
requisite
employee's
employees,
years
of
because
pension
plaintiffs
did
not
convert
this
offer
into
bilateral
To explain:
No.
arising
from
the
promise,
no
bilateral
2012AP2490
contract
is
made.
Paulson v. Olson Implement Co., 107 Wis. 2d 510, 517 n.6, 319
N.W.2d
855
(1982).
bilateral
contract
arises
when
the
As
have
explained,
"the
terms
of
an
employer's
Id.,
The
Id., 47.
the
dates
plaintiffs
established
were
by
eligible
Milwaukee
for
the
County.
benefit
they
Simply
seek;
20
No.
43
2012AP2490
For example, an
employee could not understand that the dollar amount of Countypaid premiums will accord the same benefits to employees, or
retired employees, year after year.
obtaining
the
health
and
the
premiums
insurance
plan
he
sought
necessary
to
achieve
them
can
be
insurance
that
Milwaukee
County
has
offered
to
both
insurance
provides
opportunities
21
that
Id.
the
Rather,
County
makes
No.
46
Plaintiffs
have
attempted
to
2012AP2490
distinguish
Loth
by
in
regard
to
plaintiffs'
claim.
We
now
take
up
Plaintiffs
Rehrauer control.
argue
that
instead
of
Loth,
Welter
and
Loth
those
membership
Welter,
214
pension
in
the
Wis. 2d
rights
City
of
at
488.
immediately
upon
Milwaukee's
Rehrauer
an
employee's
retirement
concluded
system.
that
the
contractually
employment.
48
In
disability
established
during
the
course
of
their
for
duty
police
claimed
officers
that
22
the
eligible
applicable
service
No.
2012AP2490
Id. at 488.
Id. at 494-95.
established
lifetime
duty
firefighters
to
an
avoid
disability
eventual
pensions,
conversion
to
allowing
the
lesser
converted
to
service
retirement
allowances.
Id.,
n.3.
Id.,
Id., 11.
No.
involved
bilateral
substantially
claim
is
contracts
identical
applicable
to
founded
chs.
here.
138
on
statutory
and
Although
2012AP2490
405
we
that
could
language
plaintiffs
draw
many
Welter
nor
Rehrauer
involves
Stated otherwise,
health
insurance,
the
Health
insurance,
found
in
MCGO
17.14
is
on
to
or
affect
Milwaukee
County's
provision
of
health
insurance.
III. CONCLUSION
52
benefit
We
it
offered
further
for
conclude
employees
that
County
who
had
not
employees
yet
have
they
fulfill
reaching
retirement
credited
county
all
three
criteria
age;
(2)
providing
service;
and
(3)
24
for
15
retiring
its
or
payment:
more
before
(1)
years
the
of
dates
No.
2012AP2490
Therefore,
the
Court.The
decision
of
the
court
of
appeals
is
25
No.
53
DAVID
T.
PROSSER,
J.
(concurring).
2012AP2490.dtp
This
case
is
appears
to
be
unfair,
have
attempted
to
find
some
order
to
preserve
rightat
least
for
some
county
Without resort to
the
reality
of
the
situation.
It
is
not
possible
to
retireindeed
from
the
time
they
were
hiredwithout
follows:
Employes have been attracted to and have remained
in the public service in counties of more than 500,000
population despite the prevailing higher wages in
other employments because of the deferred compensation
for their services promised to them in the form of
retirement annuities and death benefits in the
retirement system to which they have been admitted as
contributing members.
The purpose of this act is to
strengthen the public service in the most populous
1
No.
2012AP2490.dtp
no longer accurate.
not
always
higher
in
county
service.
Public
employee
may
reach
very
substantial
amounts.
Some
more
modern
15
or
more
years
of
service.
Thus,
the
protections
by
expansive,
unreasonable
interpretations
of
outdated
Years
ago,
Congress
passed
the
Employee
Retirement
in
in
pension
Wisconsin
plans.
so
that
Something
we
can
step
similar
back
may
from
be
the
No. 2012AP2490.ssa
60
plaintiffs
in
the
present
case
(dissenting).
began
their
When the
employment
with
MCERS is governed by
The
language
of
the
state
session
laws
and
the
employees
are
hired.
"Vested"
means
the
County
cannot
In
explicitly
1996,
that
MCGO
"[t]he
17.14(7)(h)
provisions
was
of
amended
this
to
provide
subsection
are
Section 201.25 is
No. 2012AP2490.ssa
64
The
17.14(7)(h)
"vested
benefit
is
MCERS
the
contract"
benefit
referred
contract
to
that
in
MCGO
Milwaukee
reimbursement
of
their
post-retirement
Medicare
Part
The issue
have
the
right
to
reimbursement
of
their
post-
I agree.
Justice
David
T.
Prosser
concurs
in
the
majority
1990.
2
No. 2012AP2490.ssa
without
any
financial
that
upholding
the
economic
"extraordinary
emergency,"6
conditions,"8
or
"great
"urgent
public
public
calamity,"7
need."9
The
instant case therefore differs from Home Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v.
Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 420 (1934), in which the United States
Supreme Court upheld a Minnesota statute that allowed for the
Concurrence, 54.
See Home Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398,
420 (1934).
7
See id.
No. 2012AP2490.ssa
retroactive
impairment
of
mortgage
contracts
due
to
"public
economic emergency."10
70
Rather,
Milwaukee
grounds
that
the
County
defends
benefits
it
the
2011
amendment
affects
were
not
on
vested.
the
The
It undermines
the
County.
To
give
employees
certainty
and
to
avoid
of
such
retirement
and
death
benefits"
(emphasis
added)).
10
No. 2012AP2490.ssa
71
primary respects.
72
by
reimbursement
majority
the
County's
for
retirees'
opinion
digresses
distinction
between
retirement
Medicare
and
health
system
Part
emphasizes
benefits
and
(including
premiums),
an
the
unsupported
other
forms
of
retirement benefits.
73
The
majority
opines
that
the
County's
retirement
separate
tracks.11
The
majority
comes
to
this
benefit
of
adversarial
briefs
or
argument.
Milwaukee
11
Second,
the
of
governing
the
majority
opinion
state
session
disregards
laws
and
the
clear
Milwaukee
No. 2012AP2490.ssa
County ordinances.
The
abundantly
language
clear
that
of
the
upon
state
session
becoming
County
laws
makes
it
employees,
the
reimbursement
premiums.
The
of
post-retirement
Milwaukee
County
Medicare
ordinances
Part
incorporated
The
state
session
laws
and
the
Milwaukee
County
ordinances say what they mean and mean what they say.
explicitly
grant
the
plaintiffs
vested
right
at
They
the
court
and
the
court
of
appeals
found
confusing
and
12
13
No. 2012AP2490.ssa
79
each
turns
on
the
language
of
the
provisions
governing
the
The
language
of
the
laws
and
ordinances
protecting
and
Rehrauer
were
part
of
City
of
Milwaukee's
enactments,
just
as
reimbursement
of
Medicare
Part
and
is
governed
by
state
session
laws
and
County
enactments.
81
issue were not governed by state session laws and were not part
of the City's retirement system; the City enactment at issue in
Loth made no reference to the City's retirement system or to the
vesting of benefits.
82
Thus, the Loth opinion and the Loth briefs do not cite
issue
in
Loth
were
significantly
7
different
from
the
No. 2012AP2490.ssa
provisions
governing
the
benefits
at
issue
in
Welter
and
Rehrauer.
83
as
the
retirement
state
system
session
in
laws
the
governing
instant
Milwaukee
case.
Both
County's
Welter
and
By
retirement
County
declaring
Medicare
has,
in
that
Part
my
it
will
premiums
opinion,
breached
not
of
reimburse
future
the
the
post-
retirees,
plaintiffs'
the
vested
Accordingly, I dissent.
I
86
It raises
It cites no
or
case
language
in
law
the
to
support
governing
its
state
position,
session
and
laws,
it
the
No. 2012AP2490.ssa
position.
When a court
the
opportunity
to
develop
the
relevant
facts
and
to
give
the
opportunity
to
represent
their
clients
recognize
that
some
justices
prefer
to
reach
I do not.
I prefer greater
No. 2012AP2490.ssa
agree
with
Justice
Ann
Walsh
Bradley
that
this
No. 2012AP2490.ssa
91
The
especially
majority
galling
distinction
the
opinion's
considering
majority
sua
the
opinion
sponte
lack
draws
of
approach
support
within
is
for
MCERS
the
between
in
the
many
gratuitous,
hollow-sounding
benefits
have
always
been
fluid
opportunities
("[H]ealth
insurance
increments . . . .");
payments
majority
op.,
are
50
not
earned
("[P]ension
in
cases
fluid
opportunity
for
limited
period
of
time.").
93
arguments
The
majority
distorts
the
opinion's
text
of
detour
the
1996
from
the
amendment
parties'
to
MCGO
11
No. 2012AP2490.ssa
has been "on a separate and independent track from pension and
death benefits . . . ."17
95
Both
17.14(7)(h)
before
and
provided
that
after
the
1996
the
"County
amendment,
shall
pay
MCGO
the
full
The
amendment,
text
which
added
to
remains
MCGO
in
17.14(7)(h)
the
current
by
the
1996
of
the
version
The
"vested
benefit
contract"
to
which
the
1996
vested
employees'
See 2,
right
to
all
benefits
time
of
hire,
rather
provided
by
than
the
at
MCERS
at
the
time
of
the
employees' retirement.19
98
Thus,
the
1996
amendment
expressly
puts
health
is
part
of
the
"vested
benefit
contract"
MCERS
18
19
No. 2012AP2490.ssa
County.20
benefit
at
issue
in
the
restrictions of MCERS.
instant
case
comes
within
the
the
health
rationally
benefits
in
the
at
context
issue
of
only
MCGO
at
retirement.
17.14(7)(h)
and
Read
in
the
vested
right
to
reimbursement
of
their
post-retirement
majority
opinion
20
MCERS,
explicitly
also
13
the
language
of
states
garbles
that
future
MCERS
members
No. 2012AP2490.ssa
1945,
to
"all
other
benefits"
and
the
broad
language
in
change
over
time
demonstrate
clearly
that
the
benefits
case
2011,
MCGO
revolves
17.14(7)
around
the
was
again
parties'
amended.
dispute
about
The
the
(including
the
plaintiffs)
will
be
ineligible
for
majority
opinion
upholds
the
2011
amendment
and
the
Milwaukee
County
ordinances
protecting
the
plaintiffs.
21
22
No. 2012AP2490.ssa
premiums
is
not
the
only
health
benefit
granted
by
ramifications.
106 In
sum,
the
majority
opinion's
attempt
at
at
to
retirement
give
the
falls
parties
flat.
an
The
majority
opportunity
to
opinion's
address
this
ordinances,
insurance
as
and
its
separate
sweeping
and
characterization
distinct
from
MCERS
of
health
render
the
of
majority
the
governing
ordinances
supposedly
opinion's
state
extends
inherent
for
difference
retired
session
beyond
disregard
its
between
for
laws
the
and
Milwaukee
discussion
health
clear
of
insurance
the
and
employees'
Medicare
Part
governing
state
session
laws
and
the
Milwaukee
reimbursement
of
their
post-retirement
15
Medicare
Part
No. 2012AP2490.ssa
premiums.
ineligible
for
reimbursement
of
their
post-retirement
texts
of
the
governing
state
session
state
session
chronological
Milwaukee
order
County
laws
and
Milwaukee
and
then
discuss
ordinances
govern
laws
and
I first summarize
County
them
ordinances
more
MCERS
in
fully.
The
have
made
and
dating
back
to
1937
that
protect
Milwaukee
County
develop
Pursuant
to
retirement
system
this
Milwaukee
law,
for
its
employees.
County
created
MCERS.23
23
Stoker v. Milwaukee
Wis. 2d ___, 857 N.W.2d 102.
Cnty.,
16
2014
WI
130,
5,
___
No. 2012AP2490.ssa
B.
Chapter
138,
Laws
of
1945,
declared
that
the
their
retirement
and
death
benefits.24
"[T]he
provided
that
at
the
Chapter 138
commencement
of
their
of
commencement
of
[their]
membership
[in
MCERS]."26
C.
D.
Chapter
405,
Laws
of
1965,
granted
"home
rule"
is
matter
of
local
affair
and
24
25
26
27
No. 2012AP2490.ssa
government . . . ."
It
also
"empowered
Milwaukee
which
hereafter
may
be
deemed
necessary
or
MCERS
is
also
ordinances.
amendment
As
to
governed
I
by
discussed
MCGO
Milwaukee
previously,
17.14(7)(h)
County
the
1996
incorporated
part
of
17.14(7)(c)
MCERS,
and
the
(h)
benefits
are
provided
subject
to
the
by
MCGO
vesting
29
See id., 5.
18
No. 2012AP2490.ssa
B
112 I turn to the vesting provisions in Chapter 138, Laws
of 1945.
No. 2012AP2490.ssa
the
law)
majority
and
is
opinion
given
offers
its
a
technical
legal
legal
meaning,
meaning.31
stating
that
The
"[a]
The majority
at
the
commencement
of
their
employment,
the
majority
31
No. 2012AP2490.ssa
(a) . . . The
annuities
and
all
other
benefits . . . shall be obligations of such benefit
contract on the part of the county . . . and each
member and beneficiary having such a benefit contract
shall have a vested right to such annuities and other
benefits and they shall not be diminished or impaired
by subsequent legislation or by any other means
without his [or her] consent.
. . . .
(c) Every future entrant who shall become a member of
this retirement system after the effective date of
this act shall have a similar benefit contract and
vested
right
in
the
annuities
and
all
other
benefits . . . as provided in the law under which the
retirement system was established as such law shall
have been amended and be in effect at the date of
commencement of his [or her] membership.
C
117 In
1957,
the
legislature
again
affirmed
Milwaukee
Chapter 326,
405,
Laws
of
1965,
grants
"home
rule"
"to
make
any
changes
[by
county
ordinances]
in
[its
Chapter
405 of the 1965 Laws limits this grant of home rule authority by
33
No. 2012AP2490.ssa
other
words,
Milwaukee
County
future
has
authority
to
that
the
limit
on
Milwaukee
County's
home
rule
34
36
No. 2012AP2490.ssa
As I
that
the
health
benefits
provided
by
subsection
(7)
(including MCGO 17.14(7)(c) governing reimbursement of postretirement Medicare Part B premiums) are part of the "vested
benefit
contract"
employment
with
MCERS
the
members
County,
enter
"as
upon
more
commencing
fully
set
their
forth
in
201.25(5.91) [sic]."
123 In
sum,
the
laws
and
ordinances
at
issue
in
the
138,
Laws
of
1945,
and
Chapter
405,
Laws
of
1965,
contracts,
violated
the
governing
laws
and
of
law
exists
only
"by
repeatedly
ignoring
the
No. 2012AP2490.ssa
III
125 The
third
significant
legal
error
in
the
majority
the
opinions
court
as
of
appeals
confusing
characterized
and
inconsistent:
the
following
Loth
v.
three
City
of
Milwaukee, 2008 WI 129, 315 Wis. 2d 35, 758 N.W.2d 766; Welter
v. City of Milwaukee, 214 Wis. 2d 485, 571 N.W.2d 459 (Ct. App.
1997); and Rehrauer v. City of Milwaukee, 2001 WI App 151, 246
Wis. 2d 863, 631 N.W.2d 644.
126 The
County's
position
and
argument
in
this
court
careful
examination
of
this
trilogy
demonstrates
that the three opinions are consistent with each other, support
the position I espouse, and govern the instant case.
128 The majority opinion claims it is following Loth, but
it is in fact inconsistent with Loth.
also
inconsistent
with
Welter
and
The
majority
as
controlling.
Loth
is
position.
39
instructive
and
supports
my
No. 2012AP2490.ssa
130 Loth
may
accept
the
offer
and
give
rise
to
binding
paid
retiree
contract."40
131 In
Loth,
city
resolution
extended
insurance
program
indicated
at
any
into
vested
time
or
benefit
in
any
contracts
other
way
or
otherwise
during
Loth's
retiree
health
insurance
before
he
fulfilled
the
Loth
court
interpreted
the
City
resolution
as
be
accepted
only
by
an
employee's
retiring
at
the
The court
Id., 43.
25
2008
WI
129,
31,
315
No. 2012AP2490.ssa
17.14(7),
the
County's
offer
to
reimburse
the
plaintiffs'
language
particular
health
used
by
benefits
the
City
at
issue
employer
in
to
that
offer
case.
the
Loth
required
to
fulfill
enumerated
prerequisites
before
Rather, Loth is
the
instant
case,
Milwaukee
County
offered
state
session
governing MCERS.
ordinances
laws
and
the
Milwaukee
County
ordinances
provide
that
by
accepting
County
employment,
the
the
instant
case,
unlike
in
42
43
Loth,
binding
bilateral
No. 2012AP2490.ssa
Rehrauer.
statewide
These
opinions
precedential
which
provides
court
of
that
appeals
of
effect
under
"[o]fficially
shall
the
have
court
Wis.
Stat.
published
statewide
of
appeals
have
752.41(2),
opinions
precedential
of
the
effect."
They were
not cited or argued and are not referenced in the Loth decision.
138 In Welter,44 the court of appeals considered a state
session law and provisions of Chapter 36 of the Milwaukee City
Charter relating to the City of Milwaukee Employees' Retirement
System.
be
reduced
by
the
City
prior
to
the
police
officers'
retiring.45
139 The
Chapter
441,
language
Laws
of
of
the
1947,
is
governing
state
substantially
session
similar
to
law,
the
44
No. 2012AP2490.ssa
the
court
of
appeals
in
Welter
determined
that
the
became
employees.
Thus,
the
City
could
not
amend
police
officer
becomes
member
of
the
retirement
47
Id. at 491.
48
Id.
28
No. 2012AP2490.ssa
441,
Laws
of
1947)
and
the
same
chapter
of
the
as
the
did
the
Welter
court,
that
City
employees'
benefits
were
set
forth
in
the
state
session
law
and
City
49
Id. at 494-95.
50
No. 2012AP2490.ssa
is
dismissive
of
Welter
and
Rehrauer,
The majority
characterizing
them as disability pension cases and the instant case and Loth
as
health
benefit
cases.
Without
further
explanation
or
pension
benefits
are
different
type
of
benefit
than
The
in
employees'
Loth,
Milwaukee
post-retirement
County's
Medicare
offer
Part
to
B
reimburse
premiums
its
in
the
course,
the
plaintiffs
could
not
receive
post-
prerequisites.
benefits
simply
not
mean
the
plaintiffs'
right
to
51
No. 2012AP2490.ssa
did
not
vest
when
they
commenced
their
employment
with
the
County.
148 In sum, the majority opinion is unpersuasive in its
attempt at circumventing the language of the governing state
session laws and the Milwaukee County ordinances.
is clear:
That language
to
MCGO
vested
17.14(7)
benefit
constituted
contracts
and
a
a
The 2011
breach
violation
of
the
of
the
31
No. 2012AP2490.ssa