Goodson v. Public Employees Retirement System, 264 P.3d 148

Petitioners, Window Retirees, challenged PERB’s 2007–2008 recalculation of benefits to reflect an 11.33% 1999 credit and recoupment of overpayments from a prior erroneous 20% credit.
PERB determined petitioners’ benefits should be recalculated to 11.33% for 1999 and sought repayment of overpayments.
Petitioners argued PERB’s actions violated contract impairment, due process, and sought interest on delayed COLAs.
The court relied on Arken and Strunk to conclude PERB could not promise or modify statutory terms, and that COLA interest was not authorized.
The court affirmed PERB’s final order, rejecting petitioners’ contractual and due process challenges and denying interest on delayed COLAs.
The background is consolidated with Arken v. City of Portland and Strunk v. PERB, which provide the historical context for 1999 earnings credits and PERS reform.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Contract impairment claim against PERB	Goodson et al.	PERB could not prom ise 20% credit or alter statute	No contractual entitlement; PERB lacked authority to promise 20% credit.
Due process notice for pending litigation	Petitioners entitlement to notice	No protected entitlement to 20% credit; no notice required	No due process violation; no legitimate entitlement to the credit.
Interest on delayed COLAs	Petitioners entitled to interest	Interest not authorized by statute	Interest not payable under ORS 238.470.

Arken v. City of Portland, 351 Or. 113, 263 P.3d 975 (2011) (context for PERS 20% ECA history and lack of contractual entitlement; PERB lacks authority to promise such credits)
Strunk v. PERB, 338 Or. 145, 108 P.3d 1058 (2005) (reiterates no contractual promise from PERS reform and limits PERB authority)
Arken (additional discussion), 351 Or. 129-131, 263 P.3d 988-990 (2011) (further explanation of reform legislation’s non-entitlement to 20% credit)