Doyle v. City of Medford
49 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1291, 30 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1362, 606 F.3d 667 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state statute that mandates a government benefit 'insofar as and to the extent possible' does not create a constitutionally protected property interest under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause if the standard is not particularized, the entitlement is indeterminate, and the government retains functional discretion over its ability to provide the benefit.
Facts:
- In 1985, Oregon enacted statute § 243.303, which requires local governments offering health insurance to employees to also, 'insofar as and to the extent possible,' make it available to retirees.
- In 1986, the City of Medford adopted Resolution No. 5715, which set forth the City’s plan for complying with the state statute.
- Prior to 1990, the City of Medford allowed all retiring employees to continue their health insurance coverage.
- In 1990, the City negotiated a new health insurance program with its police officers' union that did not offer post-retirement coverage.
- In 2001 and 2002, the City placed its management-level employees and other departments under the same health insurance program, which also excluded retirees.
- The City's health insurance provider, the Oregon Teamsters Employers Trust, had a contract that explicitly excluded retirees from participating in its health plan.
- Plaintiffs are former City of Medford police officers and management-level employees who were denied health insurance coverage upon their retirement.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs, former employees of the City of Medford, sued the City in the U.S. District Court, alleging that the denial of retiree health benefits violated their due process rights.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City, ruling that neither the state statute nor the city resolution created a constitutionally protected property interest.
- Plaintiffs appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit found the state statute ambiguous and certified a question to the Oregon Supreme Court to interpret the statute's meaning.
- The Oregon Supreme Court accepted and answered the question, clarifying that the statute imposes a mandatory, not discretionary, obligation on local governments, though the obligation can be excused by factual circumstances.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an Oregon statute requiring local governments to provide health insurance to retirees 'insofar as and to the extent possible,' create a constitutionally protected property interest under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Graber, Circuit Judge
No, the Oregon statute does not create a constitutionally protected property interest. Although the Oregon Supreme Court interpreted the statute as imposing a mandatory obligation, a statute fails to create a property interest for federal due process purposes if it lacks the requisite certainty and constraints on government power. The court's holding is based on three primary reasons. First, the statutory standard 'insofar as and to the extent possible' is not a 'particularized standard' that significantly constrains the government's decision-making, as it is too open-ended. Second, the nature of the entitlement is 'indeterminate' because it is unclear what level of coverage, if any, is required—it could be identical coverage or merely some coverage, depending on what is 'possible.' Citing Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the court reasoned that an entitlement cannot be vague. Third, the statute effectively provides the City with 'functional discretion' because the City's independent decisions on budgets, services, and contracts determine what is 'possible,' thus undermining the mandatory nature of the obligation. The City's own Resolution also fails to create a property interest because it explicitly allows the City to terminate the retiree program.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the high threshold for establishing a government benefit as a 'property interest' protected by the Due Process Clause. The court distinguishes between a mandatory state-law obligation and a federally protected property right, emphasizing that the latter requires a high degree of certainty and specific, binding criteria that significantly constrain government discretion. The introduction of 'functional discretion' as a factor means that even if a statute appears mandatory on its face, courts will examine whether the government retains indirect control over its ability to provide the benefit. This holding makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to bring due process claims based on vaguely worded statutes, requiring them to show that the law both defines the benefit with clarity and removes nearly all avenues of government discretion, both direct and indirect.
