Doyle v. City of Medford, 347 Or. 564

227 P.3d 683 (2010) · Supreme Court of Oregon · February 4, 2010 · No. SC S057330

Summary

The Oregon Supreme Court answered a certified question concerning the discretion local governments have under ORS 243.303(2) to provide health insurance coverage to retired employees. The court held that the statute imposes an obligation to make coverage available, but qualifies that obligation by requiring it only insofar as and to the extent possible, based on the circumstances. The local government bears the burden of demonstrating that providing coverage was not possible under the statutory standard.

Holdings

  1. ORS 243.303(2) imposes an obligation on a local government that provides health insurance coverage to active employees to make that coverage available to retired employees; the statute does not give the government total discretion simply to decline to provide retiree coverage.
  2. The statutory qualification gives local governments some flexibility and may excuse the obligation in appropriate factual circumstances, but it does not create an exception limited to literal or actual impossibility and does not permit total discretion.
  3. The local government bears responsibility for demonstrating that, under the statutory standard and the facts of the case, it was not possible to make health insurance coverage available to retirees; it cannot satisfy that burden merely by showing that its chosen provider does not offer retiree coverage.

Questions Presented

  1. What amount of discretion does ORS 243.303(2) confer on local governments to determine whether to provide health insurance coverage to employees after retirement?
  2. Whether ORS 243.303(2) imposes an obligation on local governments to make health insurance coverage available to retirees despite the phrase "insofar as and to the extent possible."

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (8)

  • Doyle v. City of Medford, 565 F.3d 536 (9th Cir. 2009)(followed for procedural history and certification)
  • Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577, 92 S. Ct. 2701, 33 L. Ed. 2d 548 (1972)(followed)
  • Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 370 (9th Cir. 1990)(followed)
  • Friends of Columbia Gorge v. Columbia River, 346 Or. 415, 426-27, 212 P.3d 1243 (2009)(followed)
  • Stanley, Adm. v. Mueller, 211 Or. 198, 208, 315 P.2d 125 (1957)(distinguished)
  • Eck v. Market Basket, 264 Or. 400, 405, 505 P.2d 1156 (1973)(followed by analogy)
  • State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160, 172, 206 P.3d 1042 (2009)(followed)
  • State v. Tate, 347 Or. 318, 328, 220 P.3d 1176 (2009)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…