Group of UC retirees
appeal court decision
Daily Cal
By Anjuli Sastry | Staff
asastry@dailycal.org
Sunday, August 14, 2011 at
8:54 pm
After losing in the courts
earlier this year in a drawn-out legal battle regarding retirement health
benefits, a group of UC retirees at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
are appealing the courtÕs decision, seeking to prove that their original
benefits were unfairly altered.
The UC Livermore Retiree
Group Ñ which claims that the UC allowed premiums and co-payments on employee
health insurance to be raised in September 2008 after the labÕs management
changed Ñ filed an appeal July 29 in the Alameda County Superior Court,
challenging the courtÕs May 26 decision in favor of the UC Board of Regents.
ÒThe reason weÕre doing this
is that we donÕt think the judge made the right decision,Ó said Joe Requa,
president of the group and a petitioner in the case. ÒThe (court) ignored
everything the university ever told us.Ó
The original decision was
made after the UC requested that the court throw out the case in December 2010
due to a lack of credible evidence.
As a result, the retirees
were forced to file an appeal and rework their case to keep it open Ñ which
resulted in around $75,000 in legal fees.
In order to afford the
appeal, the group is slowly raising money to pay the court in $25,000
increments, in addition to a $150,000 payment already spent on the case,
according to Requa.
The initial dispute arose due
to a transfer in management of the lab to Lawrence Livermore National Security
Ñ a government consortium of private companies that includes the UC Ñ which
took over the lab in 2007 from the U.S. Department of Energy.
The consortium has previously
maintained that medical care was still offered during the entirety of the
lawsuit and has not ceased as a result of the original transfer.
Representatives from the UC
could not be reached for comment.
Although medical care has
remained, Wendell Moen, a plaintiff in the case who worked at the lab full-time
from 1963 to 2000, said the retirees want their original benefits and need the
university to be more transparent when it comes to their health care.
ÒMy belief is still that the
university must re-examine its ethical positions with employees like me,Ó Moen
said. ÒThere is no reason in the world that they ought to single me out and
move me into another group Ñ it was purely a financial decision and is not one
that ought to affect me.Ó
Dov Grunschlag, an attorney
for the plaintiffs, said the appeals process will last approximately 12 to 18
months.
According to Grunschlag, the
retiree group sees the appeal as a second chance to correct the errors of the
trial courtÕs ruling.
ÒWe are hopeful that court of
appeal will see that the claims we have made are legally valid,Ó he said. ÒOn a
practical and moral level, (the retirees) put their trust in the university,
not in some organization that they have now Ñ there is no telling what that
outfit might decide to do with retiree benefits, if they might decide to
eliminate them altogether or reduce the cost of them.Ó
Requa said that he is hopeful
that the groupÕs appeal will be successful in overturning the judgeÕs original
decision. However, he added that because of state budget cuts, the process may
take some time.
ÒGiven the fact that the
California courts have been given a money cut, itÕs not clear how fast things
happen,Ó he said. ÒAll we can do is sit and wait and see what the courts will
do.Ó