425 S.W.3d 738
Ark.2013Background
- APERS stopped monthly retirement checks to Garland County Treasurer Jo West Taylor after an internal probe of about 300 double-dipping officials.
- The Board of Trustees upheld APERS’s decision; Taylor appealed to the Pulaski County Circuit Court, which affirmed the Board on termination but reversed about service credits.
- The Board appealed; Taylor cross-appealed; Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction and reviewed under the Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act.
- Taylor testified she trusted APERS guidance that going off payroll for 90 days constituted termination, and she began benefits on Sept. 1, 2008 while continuing to perform duties.
- APERS staff and officials testified that termination requires more than merely going off payroll; it requires ending employment relationships with APERS-covered employers for a required period and formal resignation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Taylor terminate her covered employment? | Taylor argued she terminated by going off payroll and following APERS guidance. | Board argued termination required formal actions beyond simply going off payroll; a resignation was needed. | Yes; substantial evidence supports termination failure |
| Does failure to terminate affect retirement status or entitlement to credits? | Taylor contends she retired, and service credits should accrue; non-termination should not bar benefits. | Election to retire is irrevocable unless proper revocation procedures are followed; forfeiture applies until termination. | Irrevocable retirement; forfeiture until termination; service credits not earned |
| Did the Board interpret the statutes and regulations correctly regarding forfeiture and service credits? | Taylor asserts statutory scheme allows concurrent service credits with retirement or reopen benefits upon revocation. | Board properly harmonized sections; termination prerequisite and revocation process control; specific statute governs forfeiture. | Yes; Board’s interpretation supported by substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Voltage Vehicles v. Ark. Motor Vehicle Comm’n, 2012 Ark. 386 (Ark. 2012) (review standards for agency decisions; substantial evidence essential)
- Searcy Farm Supply, LLC v. Merchants & Planters Bank, 369 Ark. 487 (Ark. 2007) (harmonize statutory sections; specific over general)
- Arkansas State Highway & Transp. Dep’t v. Lamar Advantage Holding Co., 2011 Ark. 195 (Ark. 2011) (statutory construction with deference to agency interpretations)
- Jackson v. City of Blytheville Civil Service Commission, 345 Ark. 56 (Ark. 2001) (definition of termination in retirement context)
- Armour & Co. v. Rice, 199 Ark. 89 (Ark. 1939) (concept of employer–employee relationship and wages)