Skip to main content

LINDA BOLDING v. ARKANSAS PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM ARKANSAS PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM BOARD CANDACE FRANKS, IN HER OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY LARRY WALTHER, IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY DAVID HUDSON, IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY STEVE FARIS, IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY DARYL BASSETT, IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACiTY GARY CARNAHAN, IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY JOE HURST, IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY ANDREA LEA, IN HER OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY DENNIS MILLIGAN, IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND DUNCAN BAIRD, IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

Ark. Ct. App.June 1, 2022Cited 5 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision upholding the Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System Board's denial of Linda Bolding's claim for a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) on her retirement benefits, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that Bolding was not entitled to a COLA.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** Linda Bolding, a retiree, sued the Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System and its board members because they denied her request for a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) on her retirement benefits. A COLA is an increase in retirement payments designed to help retirees keep up with rising prices and inflation. Bolding believed she was entitled to this adjustment and challenged the retirement system's decision to reject her claim. **What the Court Decided** The Arkansas Court of Appeals ruled against Bolding and upheld the retirement system's decision. The court found that there was substantial evidence supporting the board's determination that Bolding did not qualify for the cost-of-living adjustment under the retirement system's rules and regulations. **Why This Matters for Workers** This case highlights an important reality for public employees: retirement benefit decisions made by pension boards are given significant deference by courts. Workers should carefully review their retirement system's specific rules about COLAs and other benefits, as eligibility requirements can be strict and complex. The ruling also shows that challenging pension board decisions in court can be difficult, making it crucial for employees to understand their retirement benefits before they retire.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

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. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.