Are You Entitled To A Law Enforcement Officer’s Retirement?
The topic of law enforcement officer (LEO) retirement is on the minds of many federal employees as they make decisions about planning and timing their retirement. Federal employees pay for their retirement through deductions from their paychecks. LEOs are entitled to a higher amount of money in their pensions and pay additional paycheck deductions to earn that right.
A very disturbing and not so uncommon event occurs when the federal employee nearing retirement first learns that even though he paid the additional premium to obtain LEO status, the government now questions the employee’s LEO retirement status. , claiming that the employee should never have been classified as a LEO. The government then argues that it erred by accepting the higher deductions from the paycheck and is prepared to repay the increased premiums to the employee with interest; however, the employee loses their LEO pension.
To be eligible for the LEO retirement, federal law requires that an employee’s duties primarily involve the investigation, apprehension, or detention of persons suspected of crimes against the criminal laws of the U.S. This is distinguished from positions that involve the maintenance of law and order, protection of life and property, and surveillance or inspection of violations of law that do not qualify as LEO retirement credit.
The Federal Circuit in a 2001 case, Watson v. Department of the Navy, established several parameters to determine if an employee is considered a LEO. He focused on the very purpose of creating the subject position. The court also considered whether criminal investigation, apprehension, and detention tasks take up a substantial part of an individual’s work time during a typical work cycle and whether such tasks are assigned on a regular and recurring basis.
The Watson Court then created a five-part test to determine LEO status based on whether the position involved: (1) protecting property or prosecuting arrested criminals; (2) a juvenile entry age; (3) a mandatory retirement age; (4) physically demanding work; and (5) that the employee is exposed to risks or dangers. The intent of Watson’s decision was clearly to more strictly define the requirements for LEO consideration. The court ruled that appellant, James A. Watson, had duties involving the investigation, apprehension, or detention of criminals or suspected criminals, but which were not his primary duties. As such, it did not prevail.
Federal employees planning to retire or simply need to verify whether or not they are LEO eligible should collect their job descriptions and have them reviewed by an attorney who practices in this area. The employee should also be able to write a brief for his attorney outlining his day-to-day duties and a list of witnesses who can attest to the employee’s primary and secondary duties. There’s nothing worse than preparing for retirement and then finding out that your pension is considerably less than planned.
