Wicker v. Oregon Ex Rel. Bureau of Labor
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
PREGERSON, Circuit Judge:
Petitioners are Oregon public employees who are members of the state’s Public Employee Retirement System (“PERS”). They appeal the district court’s summary judgment order that held that the 1978 Title YII consent decree entered was not intended to permanently lock in the 1978 refund annuity rates for all PERS members. After reviewing the language of the consent decree and the evidence of the parties’ intent in the context of the litigation as a whole, we conclude that the consent decree was not meant to create a perpetual floor on refund annuity benefits. Accordingly,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- City of Los Angeles Department of Water v. ManhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Yogman v. ParrottOregon Supreme Court · 1997
- Carrie Tritchler v. The County of Lake, the Superior Court in and for the County of Lake, and Lee B. PooleCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- Arakaki v. HawaiiCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- Gates v. GomezCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Endsley v. LunaDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2010
- United States v. Pacific Gas & ElectricDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2011
- Turtle Island Restoration Network v. United States Department of CommerceDistrict Court, D. Hawaii · 2011
- Jackson v. Foodland Super Market, Ltd.District Court, D. Hawaii · 2013
- Melvin Amina v. the Bank of New York MellonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.