HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-02-1032J-02-812
9/10/02
RESOLUTION NO . 02-1032
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION
DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO TAKE ALL
ACTIONS NECESSARY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
TO, FILING SUIT OR JOINING THE SUIT FILED BY
THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES, TO CHALLENGE
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SENATE BILL 108,
ENACTED IN SECTION 112.18, FLORIDA STATUTES,
THAT EXTENDS THE PRESUMPTION FOR
TUBERCULOSIS, HEART DISEASE, AND HYPERTENSION
TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA:
Section 1. The City Attorney is directed to take all
actions necessary, including but not limited to filing suit or
joining the suit filed by the Florida League of Cities, to
challenge the constitutionality of Senate Bill 108, enacted in
Section 112.18, Florida Statutes, that extends the presumption
for tuberculosis, heart disease, and hypertension to law
enforcement officers.
CITY COMMr41S&M- H
NLEETING
S E P 1 1 2002
02-1032.
Section 2. This Resolution shall become effective
immediately upon its adoption and signature of the Mayor.'''/
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th
ATTEST:
PRISCILLA A. TIHOMPSON
CITY CLERK
day of September 1 2002.
j a,&&* " "� & •
AWFW - , - - I ,4a*1 -
MANUEL A. DIAZ, MAYLR
APPROVED., S TOJORM AND CORRECTNESSt/
001
A
6558:MVT:BSS
1� If the Mayor does not sign this Resolution, it shall become effective at
the end of ten calendar days from the date it was passed and adopted.
If the Mayor vetoes this Resolution, it shall become effective
immediately upon override of the veto by the City Commission.
Page 2 of 2
02-1032
CITY OF MIAMI
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the City Commissioner ,
FROM: Alejandro Vilarello, City
DATE: September 6, 2002 4
RE: Proposed Resolution — A
League of Cities, etc./
to Join Lawsuit by Florida
At the request of Mayor Manuel A. Diaz, please consider the attached
resolution which authorizes the City Attorney to join the lawsuit filed by the
Florida League of Cities challenging the constitutionality of Senate Bill 108,
enacted in Section 112.18, Florida Statutes, that extends the presumption of the
Heart Bill to law enforcement officers.
cc: Manuel A. Diaz, Mayor w/encl.
Carlos A. Gimenez, City Manager w/encl.
Raul Martinez, Chief of Police w/encl.
Elvi Alonso, Agenda Coordinator w/encl.
02-1092
-- 08/22/01 11:48 FL LEAGUE OF CITIES -> 305 416 1901
NO. 389 IP02
FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES,
301 South Bronough Street, Suite 300 • Post Office Box 1757 • Tallahassee, FL 32302-1757
Telephone (850) 222-9684 • Suncom 278-5331 . Fax (850) 222-3806 • Web site: www.flclties.com
August 22, 2002
Mimi Turin, Assistant City Attorney
City of Miami
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami, Florida 33233
Re: Police Officers' Disability Presumption Litigation
Dear Ms. Turin:
VIA FACSIMILE
(305) 416-1801
We appreciate the City of Miami's interest in participating in the legal challenge of the
police officers' disability presumption legislation. Ours will undoubtedly be an uphill battle; but,
with your support, we have an opportunity to force the state legislature to respect our cities'
home rule rights.
We filed the complaint in. Leon County Circuit Court on Monday, August 19, 2002.
Generally, the complaint alleges four (4) counts: the state legislature provided public employees
a retirement benefit and failed to contemporaneously fund, it; the legislation violates the single
subject rule; the legislation impairs existing collective bargaining agreements; and the legislation
is an unfunded mandate.
Your city's charter and ordinances authorize either the mayor or the commission to
commence litigation on behalf of the city. If your city is willing to be a party to the litigation,
please send the League a letter substantially similar to the attached sample. The League will pay
the costs of the litigation.
In the litigation, we allege the legislation is an unfunded mandate. To successfully do so,
we need your help to demonstrate its financial impact on municipalities. I am therefore
requesting you or your staff take a moment to promptly complete the attached survey and return
it to my attention.
Additionally, I'd appreciate it if you would provide me with a copy of your
Comprehensive Accounting and Financial Report (CAFR) for FY 2000/2001 or, if it is
unavailable, your Independent Financial Audit for FY 2000/2001. If neither is available, I'd
appreciate a copy of the Annual Financial Report (AFR) you submitted to the Department of
Banking and Finance for FY 2000/2001.
President Scott Bleck, Mayor, Dade City
First Vice President Carrtels Sterece, Councilperson. Royal Palm Beach - Second Vice President Dottie Reeder, Mayor,Seminole
Executive Director Michael Slttig - General Counsel Merry Morrison, Jr.
. 02-103
b9/22i01 11:48 FL LEAGUE OF CITIES 4 305 415 1801 N0.389 D03
August 22, 2002
Page Two
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call Kraig Conn or me at 850/222-
9684. Again, thank you for your consideration. With kind regards, I am,
Sincerely,
Harry ortison, Jr.
General Counsel
HMj/thr
attachments
02--1032
08/22%01 11:48 FL LEAGUE OF CITIES 3 305 415 1801 MO.389 D0?
Police Disability Presumption Passes Legislature
By Kraig Conn
The Florida Legislature passed a bill requiring (lie provision of workers' compensation and
disability benefits to city and county law enforcement officers suffering certain diseases without
proof the disease is caused by their employment. The Legislature amended the disability
presumption language onto CS/CS/SB 108 (R. Smith), a workers' compensation bill. The bill
expands an existing "heart and lung" presumption for firefighters and state law enforcement
officers to include city and county law enforcement officers. Governor Bush signed the bill on
May 8, 2002 and it was designated Chapter Law 2002-236, The new law means hypertension,
heart disease or tuberculosis suffered by city and county law enforcement officers is presumed to
be job related, and, therefore, covered under workers' compensation and disability benefits. This
new law will result in a significant wifunded mandate for cities and counties regarding workers'
compensation and disability expenses. The law is effective July 1, 2002.
Since 1965, Florida retirement law, section 112.18, Florida Statutes, has provided that
firefighters who are totally or partially disabled due to tuberculosis, heart disease or hypertension
are presumed to have suffered an "in the line of duty" disability. Based on this presumption
(commonly referred to as the heart and lung presumption), disabled firefighters receive enhanced
retirement benefits without proof the disease was caused or related to employment duties. This
presumption is based on the fact that firefighters frequently enter into smoke-filled, and possibly
toxic, areas as an aspect of their employment.
While the disability presumption was initially created for firefighters, it was expanded to state
law enforcement officers in 1999. Under the law, the employer must prove contraction of any of
these diseases or conditions is as a result of off -the -job circumstances. This is an extremely
difficult presumption to overcome, and not one single employer has ever successfully proven that
tuberculosis, heart disease or hypertension was not job related. Under the bill, this same
presumption will now be applied to all 40,000 city and county law enforcement officers in
Florida.
The difficulty with expanding the disability presumption to city and county law enforcement
officers arises primarily in the area of workers' compensation. Florida courts have held the heart
and lung presumption contained in section 112.18, Florida Statutes, is applicable to workers'
compensation claims. Therefore, expansion of a retirement related disability presumption to
include city and county law enforcement officers will, by necessary implication, make the
disability presumption applicable to their workers' compensation claims. Florida's workers'
compensation system has one of the highest premium rates in the country, and many cities and
counties are self-insured. Expansion of the heart and lung presumption to city and county law
enforcement officers will cost taxpayers a significant amount in additional workers'
compensation and disability expenses.
02-1032
06/22/01 11:48 FL LEAGUE OF CITIES i 305 416 1801
NO.389 008
During its 2001 Legislative Conference, the Florida League of Cities' Legislative Committee on
Criminal Justice, Ethics and Personnel adopted as its legislative priority the desire to support
legislation requiring disabilities claimed as job-related, such as hypertension or heart disease, as
well as HIV, hepatitis or cancer, be proven by the weight of the evidence, and not by statutory
presumption. Cities and counties are not advocating denial of disability or workers'
compensation benefits to law enforcement officers. It is the duty of local government to provide
competitive benefits and to provide injured workers with quality care so they can return to their
duties. Rather, cities and counties advocate that entitlement to these benefits be appropriately
shown by competent evidence. This is a fair standard and should apply to any employee seeking
to obtain an employment benefit.
Florida's cities understand the inherent risks faced by law enforcement officers, and typically
address these matters through the collective bargaining process. However, Florida's cities
oppose expanding the disability presumption because it does not take into account that
tuberculosis, heart disease or hypertension can be caused by lifestyle or other non -work related
factors. If a statutory presumption is to be considered at all, it should be limited to employees
who comply with non-smoking and other health and. physical fitness standards set by the
employer. Also, the benefit should not apply to workers' compensation unless the facts in the
case support the claim. These alternatives would create sound public policy recognizing the
risks faced by our law enforcement officers, but allowing cities to better control the rising costs
of workers' compensation and disability expenses.
Cities and counties want to save taxpayers from the potential harm of paying workers'
compensation and disability costs for injuries unrelated to the job. The goal is to shed light on
the flawed public policy behind disability presumptions and limit their expansion to other
categories of employees, such as law enforcement officers.
Kraig Conn is Legislative Counsel and Deputy General Counsel ,fir the rlorida League
Cities.
ies.
02-1412
88:22/01 11:48 FL LEAGUE OF CITIES y 305 415 1901
FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES,
I,ronough Street, Suite 300 ♦ Post Office Box 1757
Telephone (850) 222-9684 ♦ Suncom 278-5331
Web site: www.flcltles.com
NEWS
NO.389 P09
► Tallahassee, FL 32302-17576
Fax (850) 222-3806
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: John Thomas (850) 222-9684
August 19, 2002
20 Florida cities fight legislation with lawsuit
Suit f led today argues against constitutionality of police presumption
bill passed last session.
TALLAHASSEE — The Florida League of Cities filed a lawsuit today challenging the
constitutionality of a new law that makes cities pay workers' compensation benefits to city police
officers that suffer from hypertension or heart disease — even if the condition is not related to
theirjob. The law does not provide city governments with the money needed to pay for this new
benefit.
Twenty cities in Florida and the League argue the law violates a constitutional amendment
approved by the voters of Florida in 1992 saying the state' legislature cannot require cities or
counties to implement a law that costs them money without also providing the money to pay for
it.
"The constitutional amendment was approved by the voters to keep local taxes local and to
prevent the state legislature from spending local taxes on state priorities," said Mike Sittig,
Executive Director of the Florida League of Cities. IF SB 108 remains in effect, city
governments likely would have to increase property taxes to pay for the added benefits.
"The legislature gave the police union bosses what they wanted and ordered the cities to pay the
bill. Once again, the legislature is writing checks out of our checkbook and that's exactly what
the voters intended to stop when they passed the constitutional amendment in 1992," said Jim
Naugle, Mayor of Fort Lauderdale.
President Carmela Starace, Vice Mayor, Royal Palm Beach ♦ First Vice President Dottie Reader,
Mayor, Seminole i Second Vice President Clay Ford, Vice Mayor. Gulf Breeze
Executive Director Michael Sittig ♦ General Counsel Harry Morrison, Jr.
02-1032
08%22101 11:48 FL LEAGUE OF CITIES 4 305 415 1801 NO.389 910
Article VII, Section 18 of the Florida Constitution provides for cities to decide for themselves if
they want to provide these kind of benefits to police officers and prohibits the state legislature
from mandating cities to provide these extra benefits without providing the money to pay for
them.
"Making city governments charge their citizens for a policy they didn't create is like ordering the
most expensive entree on a menu and charging it to someone else's table. You benefit at
another's expense," said George Meros, the attorney filing the suit on behalf of the cities.
The cities involved in the suit are:
City of Belle Glade
City of Brooksville
City of Coconut Creek
City of DeFuniak Springs
City of Eagle Lake
City of Edgewood
City of Fort Lauderdale
City of Green Cove Springs
City of Hialeah
City of Holmes Beach
City of Inverness
City of Lake City
City of Madison
City of Melbourne
City of Ocala
City of Rockledge
City of Sebring
City of Valparaiso
Town of Windermere
City of Winter Garden
02-1032
66/22/01 11:48 FL LEAGUE OF CITIES y 305 416 1801
N0.389 011
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA
CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE; CITY
OF HIALEAH; CITY OF BELLE GLADE;
CITY OF BROOKSVILLE; CITY OF
COCONUT CREEK; CITY OF DEFUNIAK
SPRINGS; CITY OF EAGLE LAKE; CITY
OF EDGEWOOD; CITY OF GREEN COVE
SPRINGS; CITY OF HOLMES BEACH; CITY
OF INVERNESS; CITY OF LAKE CITY; CITY
OF MADISON; CITY OF MELBOURNE;
CITY OF OCALA; CITY OF ROCKLEDGE;
CITY OF SEBRING; CITY OF VALPARAISO;
CITY OF WINDERMERE; CITY OF
WINTER GARDEN; AND FLORIDA
LEAGUE OF CITIES, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
0
THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
Defendant.
-^ o
o
Case NoUck U0)3
� S
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUCTTVE RELIEF
Plaintiffs, the Cities of Fort Lauderdale; Hialeah; Belle Glade; Brooksville; Coconut Creek;
Defuniak-Springs; Eagle Lake; Edgewood; Green Cove Springs; Holmes Beach; Inverness; Lake
City; Madison; Melbourne; Ocala; Rockledge; Sebring; Valparaiso; Windermere; Winter Garden,
and the Florida League of Cities (hereinafter the "League"), hereby sue defendant, the State of
Florida (the "State"), and allege:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is an action for a declaratory judgment pursuant to Chapter 86 of the Florida Statutes
seeking a declaration that Chapter 2002-236 of the Laws of Florida (hereinafter "Chapter
2002-236") (a true and correct copy of Chapter 2002-236 is attached hereto as Exhibit A),
02-1032
C;,
rC""
w C�
-^ o
o
Case NoUck U0)3
� S
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUCTTVE RELIEF
Plaintiffs, the Cities of Fort Lauderdale; Hialeah; Belle Glade; Brooksville; Coconut Creek;
Defuniak-Springs; Eagle Lake; Edgewood; Green Cove Springs; Holmes Beach; Inverness; Lake
City; Madison; Melbourne; Ocala; Rockledge; Sebring; Valparaiso; Windermere; Winter Garden,
and the Florida League of Cities (hereinafter the "League"), hereby sue defendant, the State of
Florida (the "State"), and allege:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is an action for a declaratory judgment pursuant to Chapter 86 of the Florida Statutes
seeking a declaration that Chapter 2002-236 of the Laws of Florida (hereinafter "Chapter
2002-236") (a true and correct copy of Chapter 2002-236 is attached hereto as Exhibit A),
02-1032
09i22i01 11:48 FL LEAGUE OF CITIES 4 305 415 1801 NO.389 D12
r
A
violates the Floiida and United States Constitutions. Chapter 2002-236 violates the
following constitutional provisions: 1) Article X, Section 14 of the Florida Constitution —
(limitation on changes to state retirement and pension systems); 2) Article III, Section 6 of
the Florida Constitution — (requirement that every law embrace but one subject); 3) Article
I, Section 10 of the Florida and United States Constitutions — (prohibition against
governmental impairment of contract obligations); and 4) Article VII, Section 18 of the
Florida Constitution — (prohibition against unfunded mandates).
2. Chapter 2002-236 was originally an act relating to workers' compensation, amending
Chapter 440 of the Florida Statutes. In its final form, Chapter 2002-236, Section 3
(hereinafter "Section 3 ), amends Section 112.18 of the Florida Statutes to include a
provision that any condition or impairment of health of any law enforcement or correctional
officer (including those employed by municipalities), caused by heart disease, hypertension,
or tuberculosis, shall be presumed to be suffered in the line of duty. The modification is
embodied in a law that encompasses more than one subject, imposes significant financial
burdens upon Plaintiffs without providing a source of funding for the obligation, and
impermissibly impairs Plaintiffs' contractual rights and interferes with Plaintiffs' contractual
obligations.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Art V, § 20, Fla. Const.; § 263.012,
Fla. Stat; and § 86.011, Fla. Stat.
4. Venue lies in this Court because Leon County is the situs of State government. See Art. II,
§ 2, Fla. Const.; See also § 47.011, Fla. Stat..
2 02-032
08/22/01 11 48 FL LEAGUE OF CITIES 3 305 416 1801 NO. 389 D13
5
C�
7
8
PARTIES
Plaintiff, the City of Fort Lauderdale ("Fort Lauderdale"), is a municipal corporation existing
under the laws of the State of Florida. As of the effective date of Chapter 2002-236, Fort
Lauderdale had more than 2,571 full-time employees, including more than 502 law
enforcement officers. Fort Lauderdale provides a retirement plan to employed law
enforcement officers. The plan is maintained pursuant to Chapter 185 of the Florida
Statutes. Fort Lauderdale has a collective bargaining agreement with its law enforcement
officers. Fort Lauderdale's workers' compensation insurance program is self-funded.
Plaintiff, the City of Hialeah ("Hialeah"), is a municipal corporation existing under the laws
of the State of Florida. As of the effective date of Chapter 2002-236, Hialeah had more than
1,322 full-time employees, including more than 317 law enforcement officers. Hialeah
provides a retirement plan to employed law enforcement officers. Thin plan is maintained
pursuant to Chapter 185 of the Florida Statutes. Hialeah has a collective bargaining
agreement with its law enforcement officers.
Plaintiff, the City of Belle Glade ("Belle Glade"), is.a municipal corporation existing under
the laws of the State of Florida. As of the effective date of Chapter 2002-236, Belle Glade
had more than 236 full-time employees, including more than 45 law enforcement officers.
i
Belle Glade provides a retirement plan to employed law enforcement officers. The plan is
maintained pursuant to Chapter 185 of the Florida Statutes.
Plaintiff, the City of Brooksville ("Brooksville'), is a municipal corporation existing under
the laws of the State of Florida. As of the effective date of Chapter 2002-236, Brooksville
had more than 141 full-time employees, including more than 18 law enforcement officers.
Brooksville provides a retirement plan to employed law enforcement officers. The plan is
3
02-1032
08/22/01 11:48 FL LEAGUE OF CITIES 4 305 416 1801 NO.389 014
l ,
I
i
partially maintained pursuant to Chapter 185 of the Florida Statutes. Some employees' plans
are maintained as part of the Florida Retirement System (hereinafter "FRS").
9. Plaintiff, the City of Coconut Creek ("Coconut Creek', is a municipal corporation existing
under the laws of the State of Florida. As of the effective date of Chapter 2002-236,
Coconut Creek had more than 301 full-time employees, including more than 80 law
enforcement officers. Coconut Creek provides a retirement plan to employed law
enforcement officers. The plan is a part of FRS. Coconut Creek has a collective bargaining
agreement with its law enforcement officers.
10. Plaintiff, the City of DeFuniak Springs ("DeFuniak Springs"), is a municipal corporation
existing under the laws of the State of Florida. As of the effective date of Chapter 2002-236,
DeFuniak Springs had more than 73 full-time employees, including more than 14 law
enforcement officers. Defuniak Springs provides a retirement plan to employed law
enforcement officers. The plan is a part of FRS.
) 1. Plaintiff, the City of Eagle Lake ("Eagle Lake"), is a municipal corporation existing under
the laws of the State of Florida. As of the effective date of Chapter 2002-236, Eagle Lake
had more than 19 full-time employees, including more than 5 law enforcement officers.
Eagle Lake provides a retirement plan to employed law enforcement officers. The plan is
not maintained pursuant to Chapter 185 of the Florida Statutes. The retirement plan is a
defined contribution plan.
12. Plaintiff, the City of Edgewood. ("Edgewood', is a municipal corporation existing under the
laws of the State of Florida. As of the effective date of Chapter 2002-236, Edgewood had
more than 15 fill -time employees, including more than 11 law enforcement officers.
Edgewood provides a retirement plan to employed law enforcement officers. The plan is
4
02-J032
08/22/01 11:48 FL LEAGUE OF CITIES 3 305 416 1801 NO.389 015
maintained pursuant to Chapter 185 of the Florida Statutes. Edgewood has a collective
bargaining agreement with its law enforcement officers.
13. Plaintiff, the City of Green Cove Springs ("Green Cove Springs'), is a municipal corporation
existing under the laws of the State of Florida. As of the effective date of Chapter 2002-236,
Green Cove Springs had more than 90 full-time employees, including more than 18 law
enforcement officers. Green Cove Springs provides a retirement plan to employed law
enforcement officers. The plan is maintained pursuant to Chapter 185 of the Florida
Statutes.
14. Plaintiff, the City of Holmes Beach ("Holmes Beach"), is a municipal corporation existing
under the laws of the State of Florida. As of the effective date of Chapter 2002-236, Holmes
Beach had more than 35 full-time employees, including more than 12 law enforcement
officers. Holmes Beach provides a retirement plan to employed law enforcement officers.
The plan is maintained pursuant to Chapter 185 of the Florida Statutes.
15. Plaintiff, the City of Inverness ("Inverness"), is a municipal corporation existing under the
laws of the State of Florida. As of the effective date of Chapter 2002-236, Inverness had
more than 61 full-time employees, including more than 13 law enforcement officers.
Inverness provides a retirement plan to employed law enforcement officers. The plan is
maintained pursuant to Chapter 185 of the Florida Statutes. Inverness has a collective
bargaining agreement with its law enforcement officers.
16. Plaintiff, the City of Lake City ("Lake City"), is a municipal corporation existing under the
laws of the State of Florida. As of the effective date of Chapter 2002-236, Lake City had
more than 248 full-time employees, including more than 43 law enforcement officers. Lake
City provides a retirement plan to employed law enforcement officers. The plan is
maintained pursuant to Chapter 185 of the Florida Statutes.
5 02-1032.
08/22/01 11:48 FL LEAGUE OF CITIES 4 305 415 1801 NO.389 015
17. Plaintiff, the City of Madison ("Madison"), is a municipal corporation existing under the
laws of the State of Florida. As of the effective date of Chapter 2002-236, Madison had
more than 57 fitll-time employees, including more than 13 law enforcement officers.
Madison provides a retirement plan to employed law enforcement officers. The plan is
maintained pursuant to Chapter 185 of the Florida Statutes.
18. Plaintiff, the City of Melbourne ("Melbourne"), is a municipal corporation existing under
the laws of the State of Florida. As of the effective date of Chapter 2002-236, Melbourne
had more than 824 full-time employees, including more than 159 law enforcement officers.
Melbourne provides a retirement plan to employed law enforcement officers. The plan is
maintained pursuant to Chapter 185 of the Florida Statutes. Melbourne has a collective
bargaining agreement with its law enforcement officers.
19. Plaintiff, the City of Ocala ("Ocala"), is a municipal corporation existing under the laws of
the State of Florida. As of the effective date of Chapter 2002-236, Ocala had more than 966
full-time employees, including more than 154 law enforcement officers. Ocala provides a
retirement plan to employed law enforcement officers. The plan is maintained pursuant to
Chapter 185 of the Florida Statutes. Ocala has a collective bargaining agreement with its law
enforcement officers.
20. Plaintiff, the City of Rockledge ("Rockledge"), is a municipal corporation existing under the
laws of the State of Florida. As of the effective date of Chapter 2002-236, Rockledge had
more than 210 full-time employees, including more than 46 law enforcement officers.
Rockledge provides a retirement plan to employed law enforcement officers. The plan is
maintained pursuant to Chapter 185 of the Florida Statutes. Rockledge has a collective
bargaining agreement with its law enforcement officers.
6 02-1032
08.'22/01 1148 FL LEAGUE OF CITIES y 305 416 1801 NO.389 017
21. Plaintiff, the City of Sebring ("Sebring"), is a municipal corporation existing under the laws
of the State of Florida. As of the effective date of Chapter 2002-236, Sebring had more than
154 full-time employees, including more than 34 law enforcement officers. Sebring provides
a retirement plan to employed law enforcement officers. The plan is maintained pursuant
to Chapter 185 of the Florida Statutes. Sebring has a collective bargaining agreement with
its law enforcement officers.
22. Plaintiff, the City of Valparaiso ("Valparaiso"), is a municipal corporation existing under the
laws of the State of Florida. As of the effective date of Chapter 2002-236, Valparaiso had
more than 55 full-time employees, including more than 9 law enforcement officers.
Valparaiso provides a retirement plan to employed law enforcement officers. The plan is
maintained pursuant to Chapter 185 of the Florida Statutes.
23. Plaintiff, the City of Windermere ("Windermere'), is a municipal corporation existing under
the laws of the State of Florida. As of the effective date of Chapter 2002-236, Windermere
had more than 19 full-time employees, including more than 9 law enforcement officers.
Windermere provides a money purchase plan to employed law enforcement officers. The
plan is not maintained pursuant to Chapter 185 of the Florida Statutes. The plan is a defined
cpntribution plan.
24. Plaintiff, the City of Winter Garden ("Winter Garden'), is a municipal corporation existing
under the laws of the State of Florida. As of the effective date of Chapter 2002-236, Winter
Garden had more than 200 full-time employees, including more than 35 law enforcement
officers. Winter Garden provides a retirement plan to employed law enforcement officers.
The plan is maintained pursuant to Chapter 185 of the Florida Statutes.
25. Plaintiff, Florida League of Cities, is a not-for-profit corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Florida. Its membership consists of more than 400
02-x032
0822/01 11:48 FL LEAGUE OF CITIES 4 305 416 1801 NO.389 Pie
municipalities and charter counties located in the State. Its purpose is to work for the general
improvement of municipal government and its efficient administration in the State and to
represent its members before the various legislative, executive and judicial branches of
government on issues pertaining to the welfare of its members. Its members employ more
than 16,000 full-time law enforcement officers.
26. Defendant, the State of Florida, is a sovereign state, obligated to follow the limitations on
its authority set forth by the People of the State in the Florida Constitution and the United
States Constitution.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
27. Former Section 112.18 of the Florida Statutes provided that firefighters and state law
enforcement officers who suffered a health impairment due to heart disease, tuberculosis, or
hypertension, resulting in total or partial disability, were presumed to have suffered the
impairment in the line of duty.
28. Chapter 2002-236, among other things, amends Section 112.16 to include local law
enforcement and state correctional officers.
29. Chapter 2002-236 is a logrolled compilation of multiple subjects grouped together to gain
the support of a majority of the Florida Legislature to ensure its passage.
30. Chapter 2002-236, although entitled "an act relating to workers compensation," includes
provisions regarding workers compensation, disability benefits, and even insurance fraud.
See Exhibit A generally. The law amends no less than four Chapters of the Florida Statutes,
31. By passing Chapter 2002-236, the State is creating a benefit that must be financed by
Plaintiffs without providing a funding source.
32. The statute has been in effect since July 1, 2002. There is a bona fide, actual, present and
practical need for a declaration to preserve Plaintiffs' rights and property.
0
02-1032
08/22/01 11:48 FL LEAGUE OF CITIES 4 305 416 1801 NO.389 919
33.
34.
35
36.
37.
38.
39
COUNT
Article X, Section 14
Plaintiffs incorporate and adopt by reference paragraphs 1 through 32 of this Complaint as
if fully set forth herein.
Article X, Section 14 of the Florida Constitution sets forth:
A governmental unit responsible for any retirement or pension system
supported in whole or in part by public funds shall not after January
1, 1977, provide any increase in the benefits to the members or
beneficiaries of such system unless such unit has made or
concurrently makes provision for the funding of the increase in
benefits on a sound actuarial basis.
Article X, Section 14 of the Florida Constitution binds governmental units, including the
State, to provide for the funding of any increase in pension benefits on a sound actuarial
basis concurrent to the passage of such increase.
Article 111, Section I of the Constitution of the State of Florida vests the legislative power
of the state in its Legislature.
During the 2002 legislative session, exercising its legislative power, and therefore its
concomitant control over the benefits system applicable to public employees, the Legislature
passed Chapter 2002-236, Laws of Florida ("Chapter 2002-236"), which amended Section
112.18, Florida Statutes ("Section 112.18'x.
The amendment expands the application of a statutory presumption of accidental disability
so that the presumption will apply to all law enforcement officers and certain correctional
officers, including those employed by municipalities.
Section 112.18(1), Florida Statutes, entitled "Firefighters and law enforcement officers;
special provisions relative to disability," provides (in relevant part):
Any condition or impairment of health of any Florida state,
municipal, county, port authority, special tax district, or fire control
district firefighter or any law enforcement officer or correctional
officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), or (3) caused by tuberculosis,
z
02-1032
08;/22/01 11:49 FL LEAGUE OF CITIES + 305 416 1901 NO.389 020
40.
41.
42.
43
44.
45
46.
heart disease, or hypertension resulting in total or partial disability or
death shall be presumed to have been accidental and to have been
suffered in the line of duty unless the contrary be shown by
competent evidence.
Section 112.18(l) has a significant fiscal impact on Plaintiffs, who are ultimately responsible
for paying the disability benefits to public employees within the statutory framework created
by the Legislature.
Florida Statutes define "(p]ension or retirement benefit" to mean "any benefit, including a
disability benefit, paid to a member or beneficiary of a retirement system or plan as defined
in subsection (l)." § 112.625(6), Fla. Stat. Disability benefit plans funded by the Plaintiffs
fall squarely within the plans covered by Section 112.625. See § 112.625(l), Fla. Stat.
Any increase in a disability benefit to a pension benefit plan within the ambit of Section
112.625 supported in whole or in part by public funds is, therefore, an increase in "the
benefits to the members or beneficiaries of' a pension system.
Accordingly, since Chapter 2002-236 necessarily increases the disability benefits coverage
to certain public employees - whose benefits are paid in whole or in part by public funds —
It necessarily results in an increase in the benefits to the pension system for such employees.
Neither prior to nor concurrent with the enactment of Chapter 2002-236 was any provision
Z
ade by the Legislature, or any other entity, for the funding of the increase in benefits
provided by the statute.
The House Message Summary dated March 20, 2002 ("HMS") (a true and correct copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit B), is ripe with evidence that the Florida Legislature was
fully cognizant of the effect the law would have on municipalities.
Brooksville, Coconut Creek and DeFuniak Springs are municipalities taking part in the FRS.
These municipalities would be required to pay for the increase in pension benefits provided
for in Chapter 2002-236.
10
02-1032
08.,22/01 1148 FL LEAGUE OF CITIES 4 305 416 1801
47
48.
49
50.
51
52.
53
54
NO. 389 921
The HMS acknowledges, with regard to municipalities involved in the FRS, that " [i]t is
possible, however, that as more members use in -line -of -duty benefits, it would produce
actuarial losses that would slowly emerge. If such costs occur, they would have to be funded
through contribution rate increases as recommended in future valuations of the FRS."
Exhibit B at 1-2.
As such, Chapter 2002-236 did not ensure that the FRS was funded in such a way that the
retirement fund is able to meet its continuing obligations as and when they mature.
The HMS also states that the impact on local goverrunents would range between $5.3-6.2
million. Id.
House Bill 5 ("HB 5") contained virtually identical language to Sections 3 and 4 of Chapter
2002-236. See Fla. HB 5 (2002). HB 5 died in committee before it was revived in the
logrolling effort described infra at Count II.
The Staff Analysis for HB 5 provides that municipalities maintaining their own pension plans
would be required to expend an "unknown amount of funds" for higher benefits because of
the new provisions. (Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the Staff Analysis
for HB 5 at 1, 8).
Tfie State has presented no sound actuarial basis for funding the increase of benefits provided
by Chapter 2002-236.
Since the Legislature, in enacting Chapter 2002-236, did not make `provision for the funding
of the increase in benefits on a sound actuarial basis," Chapter 2002-236 violates Article X,
Section 14 of the Constitution of the State of Florida.
COUNT II
Article III, Section 6 -- Single -Subject Violation
Plaintiffs incorporate and adopt by reference paragraphs 1 through 53 of this Complaint as
if fully set forth herein.
11 02-032
08.,22/01 11:48 FL LEAGUE OF CITIES 4 305 416 1901
061
56
57.
58.
59
.a
61
NO. 389 D22
The Florida Constitution requires that "[e]very law shall embrace but one subject and matter
properly connected therewith, and the subject shall be briefly expressed in the title." Art.111,
Section 6, Fla. Const.
The procedural history of Chapter 2002-236 presents clear evidence of "logrolling," a
practice where several separate subjects are rolled into a single bill in order to aggregate
votes and secure passage of all disparate subjects in the bill.
Chapter 2002-236 contains multiple subjects and does not manifest a logical and natural
oneness of purpose.
Chapter 2002-236 is captioned "(a]n act relating to workers' compensation... " The law,
however, relates to disability benefits, workers' compensation benefits, retirement benefits,
and even general insurance fraud.
Chapter 2002-236 was Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 108
("SB 108"). The original form of Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for SB
108, which was passed and referred from the Florida Senate to the Florida House of
Representatives (hereinafter the "Florida House" or `•`House', was devoid of any reference
to disability benefits, or anti -fraud. (Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy
of SB108E1 as published on February 28, 2002).
The Florida House made significant amendments to SB 108 and specifically included, among
other things, the full text of House Bill 5 ("HB 5'J (a true and correct copy of HB 5 is
attached hereto as Exhibit E) and certain other anti -fraud insurance provisions.
HB 5 was entitled "an act relating to disability in the line of duty.. . ." Exhibit E at 1. HB
5 died in a Florida House of Representatives committee.
12 02-1032
08.-22/01 1148 FL LEAGUE OF CITIES 4 305 416 1801 NO.389 1723
i.
is
62. In fact, Florida Senate Bill 278 ("SB 278") (a true and correct copy of SB 278 is attached
hereto as Exhibit F), was also a bill that was virtually identical to HB 5. SB 278, like HB
5, died in a Florida Senate committee.
63. In the second to last week of the regular scheduled legislative session, the Florida House
amended SB 108, a wholly unrelated bill, to include HB 5 ("First Amendment") and thus
"revived" the dead bill and sent it back to the Florida Senate.
64. In the last week of the regular scheduled legislative session, the Florida House again
amended SB 108 to include, among other things, the anti -fraud provision ("Second
Amendment").
65. The amended bill was sent back to the Florida Senate on the third to last day of the regular
scheduled legislative session. The Florida Senate voted on the bill during the last day of
legislative session.
66. The Florida Senate initially moved for the Florida House of Representatives to recede from
the First Amendment. The motion, however, was reconsidered and the Florida Senate then
concurred with all amendments to SB 108.
67. Due to the unconstitutional logrolling, and the fact that SB 108 had to be voted on by the
Florida Senate on the last day of legislative session, the Florida Senate was faced with the
prospect of 1) letting SB 108 (and the Senate backed provisions of it as sent to the House in
its original form) die on the Senate Floor; 2) jeopardizing the fate of the bill by sending it
to the Florida House on the last day of session and requesting the House to recede from the
unwanted amendments; or 3) succumbing to the unlawful logrolling of issues and pass the
bill anyway. The Senate passed the bill as amended by the House and the bill was presented
to the Governor.
13 02-1032
Oe/22/01 11:48 FL LEAGUE OF CITIES 4 305 415 1801 NO.389 024
r.
1
68. Disability in the line of duty is a subject and matter separate and distinct from workers
compensation and insurance fraud.
69. Workers' compensation benefits are separate and distinct from disability and retirement
benefits. In fact, Section 112.13 of the Florida Statutes (2001), the same Chapter amended
by Chapter 2002-236, provides that, " f t]be insurance permitted and allowed under this law
shall be in addition to, and in no manner in lieu of the provisions of the Workers'
Compensation Law," making a clear distinction between workers' compensation and
disability benefits.
70. Moreover, the anti -fraud provision relates to the insurance industry as a whole. This, again,
is a subject and matter distinct from either workers' compensation or disability
presumptions.
71. Because Chapter 2002-236 embraces multiple subjects, among them the separate and distinct
areas of workers' compensation, disability law, and anti -fraud, the Chapter law violates the
single subject requirement of Article III, Section 6 of the Florida Constitution.
COUNT III
Article 1, Section 10 - Impairment'of Contract
72. Plaintiffs incorporate and adopt by reference paragraphs 1 through 71 of this Complaint as
dfully set forth herein.
73. The Constitution of the State of Florida provides, " f njo bill of attainder, ex post facto law
or law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed." Art I, § 10, Fla. Const.
74. Certain Plaintiffs have entered into collective bargaining agreements with the collective
bargaining agents of law enforcement officers. These agreements contain terms and
conditions of employment including benefits Plaintiffs are obliged to provide to such
employees.
14
OB./22/01 11:48 FL LEAGUE OF CITIES 4 305 416 1801 NO.389 025
75. Presumptions similar to the presumption contained in Section 112.18 of the Florida Statutes
are appropriately subjects to be considered during negotiations between the Plaintiffs and the
agents of such parties.
76. By specifically omitting such presumptions in the current collective bargaining agreements,
the agents of such employees bargained away the potential benefit from such a presumption.
77. Chapter Law 2002-236 severely impairs Plaintiffs' contract rights by placing obligations on
Plaintiffs to provide additional benefits to certain employees. Plaintiffs were not obligated
to provide, nor the employees entitled, to these additional benefits under the terms of the
original plans.
78. In addition, Chapter Law 2002-236 requires Plaintiffs to provide this increased level of
benefits to such employees in all future plans.
79. By requiring benefits not provided for in the original collective bargaining agreements,
Chapter 2002-236 jeopardizes the solvency of the current plans and jeopardizes the provision
of employee benefits thereunder.
80. Chapter 2002-236 now causes a severe, permanent, irrevocable, retroactive, and immediate
change in the contractual relationship of the parties.
81. The State of Florida possesses no significant and legitimate public purpose for enacting
Chapter 2002-236. The Florida Legislature cannot state an important, general, societal
problem that necessitates the impairment of the contract rights of the Plaintiffs and
employees in this instance.
82. Accordingly, the State has impaired the contractual obligations of Plaintiffs in violation of
Article I, Section 10 of the Florida Constitution.
15 02-1032
08/22/01 11:48 FL LEAGUE OF CITIES 4 305 416 1801 NO.389 D26
COUNT IV
U.S. Const. Art. I, § 10 — Impairment of Contract
83. Plaintiffs incorporate and adopt by reference paragraphs 1 through 82 of this Complaint as
if fully set forth herein.
84. The State has impaired the contractual obligations of Plaintiffs in violation of Article 1,
Section 10 of the United States Constitution.
COUNT V
Article VII, Section 18 -- Unfunded Mandate
85. Plaintiffs incorporate and adopt by reference paragraphs 1 through 84 of this Complaint as
if fully set forth herein.
86. Article VII, Section 18 of the Florida Constitution provides that:
No county or municipality shall be bound by any general law
requiring such county or municipality to spend funds or to take an
action requiring the expenditure of funds unless the legislature has
determined that such law fulfills an important state interest and
unless: funds have been appropriated that have been estimated at the
time of enactment to be sufficient to fund such expenditure; the
legislature authorizes or has authorized a county or municipality to
enact a funding source not available for such county or municipality
on February 1, 1989, that can be used to generate the amount of funds
estimated to be sufficient to fund such expenditure by a simple
majority vote of the governing body of such county or municipality;
the law requiring such expenditure is approved by two-thirds of the
membership in each house of the legislature; the expenditure is
required to comply with a law that applies to all persons similarly
situated, including the state and local governments; or the law is
either required to comply with a federal requirement or required for
eligibility for a federal entitlement ....
87. Chapter 2002-236 requires municipalities and counties to expend additional funds to provide
certain employee benefits.
88. The 1045 acknowledges, with regard to localities involved in the Florida Retirement System,
that " [i]t is possible, however, that as more members use in -line -of -duty benefits, it would
produce actuarial losses that would slowly emerge. If such costs occur, they would have to
#80,7V, 16 02-1032
08.122/01 11:48 FL LEAGUE OF CITIES 3 305 416 1801 N0.389 D27
be funded through contribution rate increases as recommended in future valuations of the
FRS." Exhibit Bat 1-2.
89. With regard to non -FRS localities, a majority of localities, the HMS acknowledges "there
will be additional expenses passed along to those participating units of government whose
employees make such claims." Exhibit B at 2.
90. The HMS also acknowledges that the impact on local governments would range between
$5.3-6.2 million. Id.
91. Accordingly, the passage of Chapter 2002-236 has a significant fiscal impact on Plaintiffs.
92. The State of Florida possesses no important state interest for enacting Chapter 2002-236 and
cannot, therefore, compel Plaintiffs' compliance with the provisions of Chapter 2002-236.
93. To the extent such an interest can be imputed through the Florida Legislature's conclusory
recitation of an important state interest, it is patently erroneous.
94. Accordingly, the State has imposed an unfunded mandate on Plaintiffs in violation of Article
VII, Section 18 of the Florida Constitution.
17 42"1032
08./22/01 11:48 FL LEAGUE OF CITIES 4 305 415 1801
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court:
NO.389 P28
(1) Declare that Chapter 2002-236 of the Laws of Florida violates Article X, Section
14 of the Florida Constitution and is null and void; and
(2) Declare that Chapter 2002-236 of the Laws of Florida violates Article I, Section 6
of the Florida Constitution and is null and void, and
(3) Declare that Chapter 2002-236 of the Laws of Florida violates Article L Section
10 of the Florida Constitution and is mull and void; and
(4) Declare that Chapter 2002-236 of the Laws of Florida violates Article I, Section
10 of the United States Constitution and is null and void; and
(5) Declare that Chapter 2002-236 of the Laws of Florida violates Article VII,
Section 18 of the Florida Constitution and is null and void; and
(6) To permanently enjoin the State and any and all state officers from enforcing the
unconstitutional provisions of Chapter 2002-236 of the Laws of Florida; and
(7) Grant any and all further relief as the interest of justice may require.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: q - 0 D,
rge KfAeros
Florida Dfir No. 0263321
Alex S. Nakis
Florida Bar No. 0538221
GRAY, HARRIS & ROBINSON, P.A.
Post Office Box 11189
Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3189
Telephone: 850-222-7717
Telecopi er: 850-222-3494
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
18 02--1032