Grand Junction employees 'out of luck' in challenging city's retiree health plan, appeals court rules
The immunity granted to government entities under state law bars a class action lawsuit against
A trial judge previously found no evidence the city denied health benefits to any eligible retiree, but also determined the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act foreclosed the claims of unjust enrichment and breach of contract.
The goal of the program was to provide health insurance for employees who retired before they reached Medicare eligibility, were at least 50 years old and had worked for at least 15 years for
Over time, the city realized the program was unsustainable. It twice transferred money into the plan and made adjustments to benefits and eligibility. Eventually, the police union sued on behalf of all affected employees, accusing
In a series of orders,
"The evidence presented by the City clearly established that there has never been an eligible retiring employee who was denied premium payments under the RHP," Robison wrote. "In fact, the undisputed evidence showed that, rather than being enriched by Plaintiffs' member's biweekly contributions to the RHP, the City has expended money and resources on the RHP."
The union appealed to the
"Under the facts of this case, does the plaintiff have any legal recourse?" asked Judge
"No," responded attorney
"They're just out of luck?" Lipinsky continued.
"I think that the CGIA is deliberate in these types of claims, and the legislature has made it clear about what kind of liability the city and city employees can have," said Hernandez-Schlagel.
In its
The panel also addressed for the first time whether Robison incorrectly proceeded to analyze governmental immunity before she determined whether to formally approve the lawsuit's class action status. The panel offered no opinion about whether approving the class first would have been proper, but it agreed Robison acted reasonably by holding off until she ruled on the immunity issue.
"A court that devoted time and effort to determining the appropriateness of class certification, only to conclude later in the proceedings that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff's claims were barred under the CGIA," explained Lipinsky, "would have expended judicial resources — and the parties would also have expended their resources — unnecessarily."
The panel did, however, direct Robison to clarify whether she dismissed the union's claim solely requesting an accounting of the contributions paid and benefits due to city employees.
The case is
Aetna sues after losing KanCare bid
EUR/USD Weekly Forecast: Symmetrical Triangle Nears Confluence – 11 August 2024
Advisor News
Annuity News
Health/Employee Benefits News
Life Insurance News