Borders v. City of Atlanta, 298 Ga. 188

Class action (6,000+ members) by City of Atlanta employees who participated in three defined-benefit pension plans and had not retired before Nov. 1, 2011, challenging a 2011 Ordinance that increased employee contribution rates.
Prior contribution rates: 7% (no designated beneficiary) or 8% (with beneficiary); Ordinance raised rates prospectively to 12%/13% (plus potential additional increases tied to unfunded liabilities).
The increases were prospective only and did not change benefit formulas, benefit calculations, or actual pension amounts payable at retirement.
Enrollment provisions in the City’s Related Laws (adopted 1980) state that an executed enrollment card constitutes the applicant’s "irrevocable consent" to participate under the Act "as amended, or as may hereafter be amended."
Plaintiffs argued the Ordinance breached employment contracts and violated the Georgia Constitution’s Impairment Clause by increasing required contributions; the superior court granted summary judgment for Defendants; the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the City had authority to amend contribution rates	Ordinance impaired vested contractual pension rights and violated the Impairment Clause	City acted under municipal authority to maintain/modify pension systems; amendments authorized by Related Laws and City powers	City had authority; exercise was reasonable and lawful
Whether participants had a vested right to an unchanged contribution rate	Plaintiffs: contributing employees acquired vested contractual rights preventing an increase in required contributions	Defendants: Enrollment Provisions preserved City's right to amend; participants consented to future amendments	No vested right to a static contribution rate; Enrollment Provisions unambiguous and allow amendment
Whether the Ordinance unconstitutionally impaired contracts	Plaintiffs: increased contributions impaired the obligation of contract	Defendants: amendment changed obligations (contributions), not accrued benefits; benefits remained intact and increases were prospective	No unconstitutional impairment; only pension obligations (not earned benefits) altered
Whether summary judgment for Defendants was appropriate	Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief; argued liability as a matter of law	Defendants moved for summary judgment citing unambiguous contract terms and controlling precedent	Summary judgment for Defendants affirmed — no genuine dispute of material fact on contractual/constitutional claims

Withers v. Register, 246 Ga. 158 (establishes that employee contributions and service can create contractual pension rights)
Pulliam v. Ga. Firemen's Pension Fund, 262 Ga. 411 (plan provisions allowing amendment preclude vesting in an unchanged plan)
Pritchard v. Bd. of Comm. of Peace Officers Annuity & Benefit Fund of Georgia, 211 Ga. 57 (no vested right to continuation of original plan where statute provided for amendment)
Hartsfield v. Mitchell, 210 Ga. 197 (enrollment/authorization statements can evidence irrevocable consent to future amendments)
Porter v. City of Atlanta, 259 Ga. 526 (municipal powers derive from state constitution/statutes; two-step review of ordinance authority and reasonableness)
Taylor v. City of Gadsden, 767 F.3d 1124 (11th Cir.) (distinguishes pension benefits from obligations; courts may permit contribution-rate increases that leave earned benefits intact)