1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.3d
  4. 543 F.3d
  5. 543 F.3d 1168 (2008)
 

WICKER v. OREGON EX REL. BUREAU OF LABOR

No. 07-35429.

543 F.3d 1168 (2008)

Anna Margaret WICKER; Sandy L. Henderson; Jane Gray; Carmelle L. Hartin, Plaintiffs, and Salem-Keizer School District, Intervenor-Appellee, v. The State of OREGON, by and through the BUREAU OF LABOR and the Board of Higher Education; Norman O. Nilsen Commissioner of Labor; Roy Lieuallen, Chancellor of the Board of Higher Education; Public Employees Retirement System; Joseph J. Adams; Hugh McKinely; Chalmers L. Jones; Roger S. Meier; Edwin H. Armstrong, in their capacity as members of the Public Employees Retirement Board; Brenda Rocklin; Thomas Grimsley; Michael Pittman; Eva Kripalani; James Dalton, Defendants-Appellees, v. Sawalak Ebner; Richard Mullins; Jantice Pitts; Jane Poe; Eileen Shaffer; Aimee Yogi, Movants-Appellants, and Jacqueline Davais; Jerry Trierweiller; Tim Woolery, Movants, v. Gina Santacroce; Richard Mullins, Third-party-defendant-Appellees.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Filed September 17, 2008.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Henry J. Kaplan and Gregory A. Hartman, Bennett, Hartman, Morris, & Kaplan, LLP, Portland, OR, for the petitioners-appellants.

Jeremy D. Sacks and Amy Edwards, Stoel Rives LLP, Portland, OR, for defendant-appellee State of Oregon.

Joseph M. Malkin and Sarah C. Marriott, Orrick, Herrington, & Sutcliffe LLP, San Francisco, CA, for defendants-appellees Members of the Public Employees Retirement Board.

William F. Gary and Sharon A. Rudnick, Harrang Long Gary Rudnick P.C., Eugene, OR, for intervenor-appellee Salem-Keizer School District.

Before: HARRY PREGERSON and STEPHEN REINHARDT, Circuit Judges, and CONSUELO B. MARSHALL, District Judge.

PREGERSON, Circuit Judge:

Petitioners are Oregon public employees who are members of the state's Public Employee Retirement System ("PERS"). They appeal the district court's summary judgment order that held that the 1978 Title VII consent decree entered was not intended to permanently lock in the 1978 refund annuity rates for all PERS members. After reviewing the language of the consent decree and the evidence of the parties' intent in the context of the litigation...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases