Court affirms denial of officer's retirement plan election appeal

In a recent ruling, the First District Court of Appeal of Florida upheld the State Board of Administration's (SBA) decision to deny Melody Moore's request to rescind her election to transfer from the State's Pension Plan to the State's Investment Plan. This decision impacts Moore, a law enforcement officer, and potentially affects other state employees who may seek to change their retirement plans after the designated election period.

The case, Melody Moore v. State Board of Administration, was filed on March 23, 2020, under docket number 1D19-1870. Moore, who has been employed by the Miami-Dade Police Department and previously by the Broward County Sheriff’s Office, argued that she should be allowed to rescind her decision made eight years prior to switch to the Investment Plan.

The dispute centers around the options available to state employees regarding their retirement plans. In 2002, the Florida Legislature created the Investment Plan as an alternative to the existing Pension Plan. Employees were given until November 30, 2002, to make their election. If no election was made, employees would default to the Pension Plan. Moore did not make an election at that time and remained in the Pension Plan.

In 2010, after several inquiries to the MyFRS Financial Guidance Line, Moore decided to switch to the Investment Plan, believing it to be a better option. However, she was informed that she would have until January 2011 to rescind this election, after which it would become permanent. Eight years later, Moore sought to rescind her election, claiming she was not adequately informed of the consequences of her decision.

The SBA denied Moore’s request, stating that she did not seek to rescind her election in a timely manner and that it lacked the authority to grant her a third election. The SBA found no evidence that Moore was misadvised about her options. Records from her calls to the MyFRS Financial Guidance Line indicated that she was provided with information comparing the two plans and was advised that the Pension Plan would offer greater retirement benefits.

In its ruling, the court affirmed the SBA's decision, stating, "The SBA lacks statutory authority to rescind Moore’s second election outside the statutory grace period or to grant her a third election." The court, led by Judge Rowe, emphasized that the SBA is bound by the authority granted by the Legislature, which allows for only one opportunity to switch plans and a limited grace period for rescission.

The court further noted that Moore's request was eight years late and that she failed to provide sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption that her decision to switch plans was made with full knowledge and consent. The ruling highlighted that any action taken by an FRS plan member five years prior to a complaint is presumed to have been made with the member's knowledge.

The impact of this ruling is significant for state employees considering their retirement options. It reinforces the importance of making timely decisions regarding retirement plans and the limitations on rescinding those decisions once the grace period has expired. This case sets a precedent that emphasizes the need for employees to be proactive and informed when making choices about their retirement.

Looking ahead, it is unclear if Moore will appeal the decision further. The court's ruling is not final until any timely and authorized motions are resolved. Additionally, there may be related cases involving other state employees who seek to challenge similar decisions regarding their retirement plans.