Massey v. McGrath, 91-3002

Decision Date04 June 1992
Docket NumberNo. 91-3002,91-3002
Citation965 F.2d 678
Parties75 Ed. Law Rep. 777 John MASSEY, Homer B. Sewell, Eunice Lieurance, Donald L. Esslinger, Kendall E. Anderson, Richard Atkinson, Donald W. Bailey, David E. Baker, Betty Ann Barnett, Bruce E. Beck, Linda S. Benedict, Roger Bennett, Robert J. Bevins, Albert Tice Black, Roy Blassingame, Rebecca Blocker, Linda Glumenberg, Kenneth A. Bolte, Gerald A. Boschert, Martha M. Bowen, Paul Brautigam, John Brumett, Daryl D. Buchholz, William L. Buehler, R. Beth Burke, Charles E. Campbell, Jerry D. Carpenter, Roy J. Carter, Charles Franklin Chaney, Robert W. Chapple, Donna R. Chilton, Janet A. Clark, Richard W. Clark, Donna Clavin, Beverly Coberly, Eldon Cole, Fred E. Conner, James B. Cook, M. Mike Cooper, Dale D. Cox, Leo L. Cram, Palma K. Crass, Bill Crews, Eber F. Cude, John Robert Cusick, Fred Duane Dailey, Don R. Day, Roberta Decocq, Janet Haney Delcour, Archie L. Devore, Henry F. Dicarlo, Marvin C. Dobbs, Patrice G. Dollar, Mary Kathryn Barham Dothage, Lyle V. Ellis, Hildegard G. Etzkorn, Wanda Eubank, Gaylon Fanning, Phyllis Ann Flanigan, Nancy F. Flood, Owen A. Fox, Jim Freeman, Barbara Froke, Charles D. Fulhage, Benjamin H. Gallup, Charles T. Gamble, Sharon K. Gann, Marion E. Gentry, Allyn Scott Graham, Louis G. Gray, Doris J. Greig, Lowell D. Hagerman, Larry A. Hale, Stacy Hambelton, Vance Hambelton, Sherron J. Hancock, Thomas L. Hansen, Lula B. Harper, Karl L. Hartung, Glenda J. Hawkins, Dorothy Heieie, Norlin A. Hein, Joanne Heisler, Robert L. Heitmeyer, Marian Hess, Rodney O. Hexem, Ronald W. Higginbotham, Kermit J. Hildahl, John A. Hoehne, Gary D. Hoette, Richard G. Hoormann, Arlon L. Horn, Sharen Hunt, Randall N. Humphrey, Frank E. James, Richard Janes, Lehman Jennings, Rebecca Ann Jennings, Martin Johns, Lenard Ray Johnson, Flernoy G. Jones, Philip L. Kelley, Fannie Johnson-Kendrick, James E. Kennel, Albert L. Kennett, Paula Kennish, Scott Collin Killpack, Kate King, Janet Lee Kline, Joseph Koenen, Clemons A. Koenig, Lois M. Laster, P. Jill Leckrone, Frank N. Letzku
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Keith Brunstrum, Jefferson City, Mo., argued (Roger G. Brown and R.L. Veit, appeared on the brief), for appellants.

William F. Arnet, Columbia, Mo., argued (Nancie D. Aulgur and Marvin E. Wright, appeared on the brief), for appellees.

Before WOLLMAN and MAGILL, Circuit Judges, and LONGSTAFF, * District Judge.

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs appeal from the district court's 1 order denying their claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. We affirm.

I.

The University of Missouri operates a retirement plan known as the University of Missouri Retirement Disability and Death Benefit Plan (URS). The URS was established by the Board of Curators of the University in 1958. It is a noncontributory system, with the University contributing 6.56% of the pay of eligible employees to cover the cost of the plan. University employees covered by the URS also participate in the federal Social Security system.

Plaintiffs are employees of the Extension Division of the University. By virtue of their federal appointments through the Department of Agriculture, plaintiffs, and other employees within the Extension Division, participate in the United States Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). Plaintiffs currently contribute 7% of their salaries to the CSRS (exclusive of their contributions for Medicare coverage), and the University contributes a like amount. As participants in the CSRS, plaintiffs do not receive credit under the Social Security system for their years of service with the University.

At the time the URS was established, the University determined that because employees of the Extension Division were already covered by a retirement system, they would not be entitled to credit towards retirement benefits under the URS.

The URS remained largely unchanged from 1958 until 1989, when the University considered making significant changes in the plan. At that time, the University received a request from a group of Extension Division employees that the URS be amended to enable them to receive credit under the URS for their past years of service with the University, notwithstanding the fact that they had already received credit for that service under the CSRS. In response to this request, the University asked its actuarial consultants to determine the cost of allowing the employees of the Extension Division to receive the requested credit. The consultants responded that the cost would be approximately $3.5 million per year for twenty years. The consultants also advised the University that a comparison of all features of the two systems (CSRS versus URS plus Social Security benefits) revealed that the two systems were approximately equal in value. Accordingly, the University decided that in the light of the limited financial resources available to it, it would be unfair to the thousands of other employees of the University to grant URS credit to the employees of the Extension Division. Accordingly, the requested change in the URS was denied.

Plaintiffs then brought this action against the University, alleging, among other things, that the University's decision to exclude them from receiving credit for service for URS benefits deprives them of their constitutional right to equal protection of the law. This claim is based on the fact that a University employee who retires at age sixty-five with URS and Social Security benefits will receive greater retirement income than a similarly situated employee retiring under the CSRS.

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Day v. Board of Regents of University of Nebraska
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska
    • October 24, 1995
    ... ... will be upheld if they are rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest." Massey v. McGrath, 965 F.2d 678, 681 (8th Cir.1992) (citing United States Railroad Ret. Bd. v. Fritz, ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT