HORTON v. STATE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM., 262 Ga. 458, 421 S.E.2.d 703 (1992)
Linked as:
Summary
Judgment affirmed. Clarke, C. J., Bell, P. J., Benham, Fletcher and Sears-Collins, JJ., concur.
Summary
Judgment affirmed. Clarke, C. J., Bell, P. J., Benham, Fletcher and Sears-Collins, JJ., concur.
Text
McKenney & Froelich, William J. McKenney, David M. Kupsky, for appellant.
In 1991 and 1990 respectively, Corporal William Horton and Trooper Charles Haines retired from the Georgia State Patrol upon reaching the mandatory retirement age of 55 years. Prior to his service with the state, Horton had served for three years and eleven months with the United States Air Force from October 1953 until September 1957; Haines had been in the United States Navy for four years, serving from August 1954 to August 1958. Under the applicable statutes, both men could obtain credit toward their state retirement for their military service by paying the equivalent employee contribution plus 15 percent interest, but since these amounts were over $75,000 each, neither patrolman was able to take advantage of this offer.
Because statutes affecting other employees permitted the purchase of military service for retirement credit without interest or for only 4 1/2 percent interest, Horton and Haines filed suit against the Employees Retirement System claiming the statutory scheme violated equal protection and unconstitutionally impaired their employment contracts. The trial court granted summary judgment to the ERS. The plaintiffs appeal; we affirm.
When the plaintiffs were hired in 1970 and 1971, they were not entitled to purchase credit for their military service, although credit previously had been allowed, without charge, for those who had served prior to July 1, 1953. After Horton was hired, a statute was enacted crediting those hired before April 1, 1972, with military service prior to January 1, 1954, without charge. OCGA
In 1981, the legislature enacted a statute allowing purchase of credit for military service during the Vietnam war, August 5, 1964 through May 7, 1975, for the amount of the employees' contribution with 4 1/2 percent interest. This act, OCGA
1. It is axiomatic that where an employee contributes towards the benefits to be received under a statutory retirement plan, the statutes in effect at the time of the employment become a part of the employee's contract. Swann v. Bd. of Trustees &c. Benefit System,
This case does not involve a suspect classification, nor a fundamental right. Thus, in reviewing the plaintiffs' charge that the ERS classification system violates the equal protection guarantees of the federal and state Constitutions, we apply a rational basis standard of review. Price v. Lithonia Lighting Co.,
The Equal Protection Clause does not require the Legislature to treat all veterans exactly alike. If the Legislature seeks to reward those veterans through OCGA
The classifications here, based, in part, on the conditions of service, do not violate the plaintiffs' rights to equal protection. Therefore, the trial court properly granted summary judgment to the ERS.
Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Susan L. Rutherford, Jeffrey L. Milsteen, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.
Sponsored links
This document cites
- Supreme Court of Georgia - SWANN v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF JOINT MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES\' BENEFIT SYSTEM et al., 257 Ga. 450, 360 S.E.2.d 395 (1987)
- Supreme Court of Georgia - PRICE v. LITHONIA LIGHTING COMPANY., 256 Ga. 49, 343 S.E.2.d 688 (1986)
- Supreme Court of Georgia - WITHERS et al. v. REGISTER et al., 246 Ga. 158, 269 S.E.2.d 431
See other documents that cite the same legislation
