Skip to main content

White v. Public Employees Retirement Board

Or.December 30, 2011No. CC 040404118, 041111848; CA A142773; SC S059213Cited 10 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
De Muniz, Durham, Balmer, Kistler, Walters, Linder
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.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the Public Employees Retirement Board on most claims, but reversed and remanded on one claim regarding alleged breach of fiduciary duty where disputed factual issues existed.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** A public employee named White sued the Public Employees Retirement Board, claiming the board broke its promises and failed in its duty to properly manage retirement benefits. White argued the board didn't handle retirement funds and benefits as it was supposed to, which could have harmed employees' retirement security. **What the Court Decided** The Oregon Supreme Court mostly sided with the retirement board, upholding the trial court's decision that the board didn't break its contracts with employees. However, the court found one important exception: there were unresolved questions about whether the board failed in its responsibility to act in employees' best interests when managing their retirement benefits. The court sent this specific issue back to the lower court for further review. **Why This Matters for Workers** This case shows that public employees can challenge their retirement boards when they believe their benefits aren't being properly managed. While most contract claims against retirement boards are difficult to win, employees may have stronger legal ground when arguing that the board failed in its duty to act in their best financial interests. This could be important for workers whose retirement security depends on proper management of their pension funds.

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.