UPEA suit targets scrapping of benefit

The association that represents 25,000 state employees voted Friday to sue over a controversial law passed last session limiting a retirement benefit.

The Utah Public Employees Association board debated behind closed doors whether to take the action. Its decision came as little surprise, given the controversy surrounding HB213 during the 2005 Legislature.

"We may get a bloody nose on this one, but we have to get our licks in," said UPEA President Larry Evans, who took office just two weeks ago. Evans said an injunction will be sought to keep the law from taking effect next January.

Under the complicated new law, state employees will lose the ability to convert their unused sick time into health-care premium payments after they retire. Many state workers count on the benefit to cover costly premiums, Evans said.

It's crucial, he said, in the years between retirement and the time federal Medicare benefits kick in. Because state employees are eligible to retire after 30 years — 20, if they're in public safety — that time lag can be significant.

"It's a great benefit to employees," Evans said, intended to make up for years when state workers saw little or no increases in their paychecks. "Promises were made that this would make it up to us."

Now, the 11-member UPEA board has determined, the Legislature broke those promises. The board also voted Friday to hire the law firm of Kirton & McConkie to handle its case, Evans said.

The decision to sue didn't surprise the bill's sponsor, Rep. Dave Clark, R-Santa Clara, given what he described as today's "litigious" environment. However, Clark said he was disappointed.

A lawsuit, Clark said, could result in the same tension between employees and state officials as was seen during the legislative session, when hundreds of employees rallied against the bill and packed committee hearings in an attempt to stop the bill.

"I think this will bring about an equally contentious legal fight," Clark said.

The legislator said the bill was necessary because the state had a fiscal responsibility to address a benefit that he said would eventually create a liability of some $250 million for the state.

Knowing that, Clark said, he worked very hard to balance the concerns of the employees with the legal and fiscal requirements of the state.