Klumb v. Houston Municipal Employees Pension System, 458 S.W.3d 1

HMEPS is governed by Article 6243h, which gives the pension board broad authority to interpret the statute, fill omissions, adopt rules, and make final, binding determinations on membership, eligibility, and benefits.
The City of Houston attempted to outsource convention/entertainment employees to city-controlled or nonprofit entities (Houston First, CCSI) to reduce pension contributions; these employees performed materially the same municipal functions but were placed on non-City payrolls.
HMEPS adopted an interpretation expanding "employee" to include full-time employees of city-controlled local government corporations or entities controlled directly or indirectly by the City, and amended plan documents accordingly; the External Affairs Committee applied that construction to treated employees.
Six transferred employees sought retirement, deferred-retirement, or cessation of pension contributions; HMEPS denied separation from municipal service and continued membership/contributions under its construction.
Petitioners sued HMEPS and five trustees alleging ultra vires acts, equal-protection and due-course-of-law (due process) violations, and breach of meet-and-confer agreements; HMEPS pleaded lack of jurisdiction and sovereign immunity; the trial court dismissed, and the court of appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether courts may review pension-board interpretation under ultra vires theory	Trustees exceeded authority by effectively amending "employee" definition without City consent	Article 6243h grants board exclusive authority to interpret, supplement, and make final determinations; so judicial review is barred	Board interpretation was within statutory authority; ultra vires exception not triggered — no jurisdiction
Whether delegation to External Affairs Committee was ultra vires	Committee was given final decision power contrary to meet-and-confer agreement	Statute permits delegation; meet-and-confer breach is a contract claim, not ultra vires	Delegation authorized by statute; contract noncompliance does not create ultra vires claim
Whether equal-protection claim survives sovereign immunity	Transferred employees are similarly situated to others (e.g., zoo workers) and board's differing treatment lacks rational basis	Classification is rationally related to preserving pension funding and preventing double-dipping	Equal-protection claim fails; board's classification has rational bases
Whether petitioners have vested property/due-course-of-law rights in benefits/contributions	Eligible employees became entitled to retirement benefits or to contributions as property	Under precedent, future pension installments and withheld contributions are not vested property rights	Due-course claims fail; no vested property interest — jurisdiction lacking

Houston Mun. Emps. Pension Sys. v. Ferrell, 248 S.W.3d 151 (Tex. 2007) (Article 6243h’s "final and binding" language precludes judicial review of pension-board interpretations)
City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (ultra vires suits may require officials to comply with statute or constitution; distinguishes discretionary acts from ministerial/unauthorized acts)
Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standard for pleading and adjudicating subject-matter jurisdiction and pleas to the jurisdiction)
City of Dallas v. Trammell, 101 S.W.2d 1009 (Tex. 1937) (no vested right in future pension installments; pension interests are subject to legislative/regulatory change)
IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. 2002) (contract claims against state entities implicate sovereign immunity; declaratory suits to enforce contracts are suits against the State)
Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. 2006) (explains sovereign immunity’s role in shielding the public from costs of suits against government)