CITY OF KNOXVILLE v. THE CITY OF KNOXVILLE PENSION BOARD, ET AL. - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Dec 14, 2012

Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys 1:

Al Holifield; Tina Haley; and, Sarah R. Johnson, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellants, Clarence Norman Bragg; James C. Brock, Jr.; Roy Brooks; Jeffery D. Caldwell; Lisa Denise Chambers; Valerie Denise Coleman; Donald E. Dailey; Terry Lamar Griffitt; Kenneth Ray Jackson; Brently Joel Johnson; Susan Kay; Stephen J. King; Todd Lay; Joseph Graham MacDonald; Carol C. Mahler; Fannie Paullette Maples; Randell Charles Maynard; Jeffery J. McCarter; Deborah C. Moore; Ernie L. Pierce, III; Michelle L. Pons; Zephyree D. Porter;Greg Roberts; Richard Roller; Sandra Kelley Schade; Timothy Scott Schade; Robin D. Shelton; Paula S. Troutt; Joe Walsh; Gregory Scott Williams; and, James E. York.

Attorneys 2:

Robert H. Watson, Jr.; John T. Batson, Jr.; and, E. Courtney Epps, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellee, the City of Knoxville.

Judge(s): SWINEY

This appeal in a writ of certiorari action arises from a dispute over the authority of a pension board. The City of Knoxville (“the City”) filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Knox County (“the Trial Court”) challenging an action by the City of Knoxville Pension Board (“the Pension Board”). The City alleged that the Pension Board exceeded its authority in allowing a number of employees (“the Respondents”) to select a new retirement plan option despite the fact that the Respondents already had made their onetime selection for a different and now less attractive retirement plan option. Knoxville voters previously had rejected by referendum an ordinance that would have given the Respondents this opportunity for a new selection. The Pension Board argued that it merely was correcting an inadvertent error that had disadvantaged the Respondents. The Trial Court held that the Pension Board exceeded its authority and reversed the actions of the Pension Board. The Respondents appeal to this Court. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court 1 in its entirety.