REAOC v. County of Orange, No. 12-56706 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseRetired Employees and their spouses filed suit against the County, alleging that the Retired Employees have an implied vested right to the pooling of their health care premiums with those of current employees ("pooled premiums"). The court affirmed the district court's order granting the County's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Retired Employees failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact where they did not show any link to Retired Employees' claim of an implied right to an ongoing pool premium; a practice or policy extended over a period of time did not translate into an implied contract without clear legislative intent to create that right - and intent that Retired Employees has not demonstrated in this case; Retired Employees' assertions that its involvement in negotiations with the County revealed an implied contract right to the pooled premium also lacked evidentiary support; and the nature of Retired Employees' evidence underscored the absence of any definitive intent or commitment on the part of the County to provide for the pooled premium. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of the County's motion for summary judgment.
Court Description: Medical Benefits. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Orange County in an action brought by the Retired Employees Association of Orange County alleging that its members had an implied vested right to the pooling of their health care premiums with those of current employees. The panel held that the Association failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding its alleged implied contract right to the pooled premium, leaving its implied contract claim without factual or legal support. The panel held that a practice or policy extended over a period of time does not translate into an implied contract right without clear legislative intent to create that right—an intent that the Association had not demonstrated in this case. The panel held that the nature of the Association’s evidence underscored the absence of any definitive intent or commitment on the part of the County to provide for the pooled premium.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.