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 when they make decisions about planning and timing their retirement. Federal employees pay their retirement through deductions from their paychecks. LEOs are entitled to more 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 approaching retirement first learns that although he paid the additional premium to obtain LEO status, the government is now questioning the employee’s LEO retirement status. , claiming that the employee should never have been classified as a LEO. The government then contends that it made a mistake in accepting the higher paycheck deductions and is prepared to return the increased premiums to the employee with interest; however, the employee loses his LEO pension.
To be eligible for LEO retirement, federal law requires that employee duties primarily involve the investigation, apprehension, or apprehension of persons suspected of crimes against U.S. criminal laws. This is distinguished from positions involving the maintenance of law and order, protection of life and property, and monitoring 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 looked at whether criminal investigation, apprehension, and detention tasks take up a substantial portion of the 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 pursuing arrested criminals; (2) a young entry age; (3) a mandatory retirement age; (4) physically demanding work; and (5) the employee is exposed to risks or hazards. The intent of Watson’s decision was clearly to more narrowly define the requirements for LEO consideration. The court ruled that the appellant, James A. Watson, had duties that involved the investigation, apprehension, or apprehension 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 needing to verify whether or not they are eligible for LEO should compile their job descriptions and have them reviewed by a practicing attorney. The employee must also be able to write a summary for his attorney indicating his daily duties and a list of witnesses who can attest to the employee’s primary and secondary duties. There is nothing worse than preparing for retirement and then discovering that your pension is considerably less than planned.