The court affirmed the Employee Retirement System of Texas's denial of Mah's request to purchase service credit for his employment at the University of Texas, holding that employment covered by the Teacher Retirement System cannot provide service credit under the Employee Retirement System.
What This Ruling Means
**Cheng H. Mah v. Employee Retirement System of Texas**
**What Happened:**
Cheng Mah worked at the University of Texas and wanted to purchase service credit for that employment time to count toward his retirement benefits through the Employee Retirement System of Texas (ERS). The ERS denied his request, so Mah sued to challenge their decision.
**What the Court Decided:**
The court sided with the Employee Retirement System and upheld their denial. The court ruled that employment covered by the Teacher Retirement System (which includes university work) cannot be used to earn service credit under the separate Employee Retirement System. Since Mah's university employment was already covered by the Teacher Retirement System, he could not transfer or purchase those years of service for credit in the ERS.
**Why This Matters for Workers:**
This ruling clarifies that Texas public employees cannot double-dip between different state retirement systems. Workers need to understand which retirement system covers their specific job and cannot combine or transfer service credits between systems like ERS and TRS. Public employees should carefully track which retirement system applies to each position they hold and plan their retirement accordingly, as years of service in one system may not count toward benefits in another.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.