341 N.E.2d 320 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1975
Plaintiffs have appealed a decision of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas dismissing their amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The substance of the amended complaint is that plaintiffs are present and former unclassified employees of the state who have or are contributing to the Public Employees Retirement System (hereafter, referred to as PERS), and whose pay is or was withheld and deposited in the PERS of Ohio, subject to law. The basic complaint is that when employees leave public service prior to retirement or death, only their contributions are returned without interest for the time PERS had the use of their money. They further allege that the PERS board has failed to provide standards or guidelines for administering the fund, and that their property has been taken without due process of law, as it has been used without payment of interest. The trial court granted defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, stating as follows:
"Central to the constitutional infringements claimed in the Complaint is Ohio Revised Code Section
"The underlying basis for the Complaint appears to be that a member who terminates state employment before death or retirement is deprived of constitutional rights by not receiving interest on the sum of his contributions.
"This Court views Section
"The terms of Section
"The Court also finds that no denial of equal protection of the law is stated in the Complaint for a lack of rules and regulations to provide definitions and procedures, pursuant to Section
"Defendant shall prepare and submit a Judgment Entry in accordance with Court Rule 39.01."
From the trial court's ruling the plaintiffs have set forth the following assignments of error:
1. The trial court erred in dismissing appellants' complaint and amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
2. The trial court erred in dismissing the appellants' complaint and amended complaint by an interpretation of section
3. The trial court erred in its determination that there were no constitutional infringements in the failure of the appellee to provide rules and regulations.
The assigned errors will be considered together as they are interrelated. Plaintiffs first complain that the trial *150 court interpreted the law concerning the requirement of crediting an employee who withdraws from the system with interest without permitting them to proceed with the evidence or to go through other pleading stages.
The test to be utilized by the trial court in granting a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is whether it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.Conley v. Gibson (1957),
Plaintiffs further complain that the trial court erred in its determination that there were no constitutional infringements in the failure of the defendant to provide rules and regulations. It is true that R. C.
The crucial matter in this appeal is the question of whether a proper interpretation of R. C. Chapter 145 is that no interest is to be credited to an employee's refundable contributions during the period that they are retained by the PERS, including the ninety-day period after a request is made for a refund and the period prior to it.
R. C.
"A member who ceases to be a public employee for any cause other than death or retirement, and subject to such rules and regulations as are established by the public employees retirement board, upon application to the board shall be paid the accumulated contributions standing to the credit of his individual account in the employees' savings fund, and in addition thereto, he shall be refunded any principal payment he may have made to restore previously forfeited service credit as provided in section
That section provides that the person who ceases to be a public employee is entitled to his accumulated contributions. Accumulated contributions are defined in R. C.
"`Accumulated contributions' means the sum of all amounts deducted from the compensation of a member and credited to his individual account in the employees' savings fund together with any current interest thereon, but shall not include the interest adjustment at retirement."
However, the crediting of current interest referred to in this definition was eliminated by the General Assembly. R. C.
"(I) `Regular interest' means interest at such rates for the respective funds and accounts as the public employees retirement board may determine from time to time except as follows:
"(1) Subsequent to December 31, 1958, the retirement board shall discontinue the annual crediting of current interest to the individual accounts of members. The non-crediting of current interest shall not affect the rate of interest at retirement guaranteed under this division."
The PERS board has interpreted these statutes to mean that after December 31, 1958, a member who leaves the public employees retirement service through causes other than death or retirement is entitled only to the contributions deducted from his salary, but is not entitled to any interest on those deductions. There is a vested right in the employee's own contributions, but no right to interest for use of the money while such is within the hands of PERS. That interpretation is reasonable and apparently has been uniformly applied since December 31, 1958.
Even if the aforesaid statutes are ambiguous on the basis that they may be interpreted as requiring the discontinuance of the practice of crediting interest on an annual *153
basis, rather than as abolishing interest payments altogether, the administrative construction should be upheld. R. C.
"If a statute is ambiguous, the court, in determining the intention of the legislature, may consider among other matters: * * *
"(F) The administrative construction of the statute."
The fact that this administrative construction has been applied since the inception of R. C.
Plaintiffs contend further that they are being deprived of property rights; to wit, interest on their contribuions, which are involuntarily deducted from their salaries and paid into the PERS and that this use of their property without payment therefor constitutes a denial of due process or equal protection. This contention is not well taken.
State employees have no vested property right in their contributions to a compulsory retirement system unless and until such rights are granted by specific legislation or rule.Mell v. State, ex rel. Fritz. (1935),
One further point raised by plaintiffs is that the absence of rules or regulations by the PERS board, pertaining to a return of contributions, denies a complaining party redress to the courts as required by Section
All assignments of error are overruled and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
WHITESIDE and REILLY, JJ., concur. *155