|Livermore employee/plaintiff Joe Requa in 2011|
The case raises the issue more generally of whether UC employees have a vested right to retiree health care (as they do to a pension) even though the Regents current position is that retiree health care is a nice thing they voluntarily provide but that the benefit is not an entitlement.
The wheels of justice have been grinding slowly. A ruling on December 12 says effectively that the plaintiffs should not be viewed as a single class but have to be divided because, over time, the promises made in the employee handbooks describing retiree health have become more qualified.
You can find the decision below:
*http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2011/01/livermore-retirees-sue-university-over.html, http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2011/06/judge-dismisses-livermore-lab-retirees.html, and http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2010/10/uc-manhattan-project-legacy-potentially.html. See also http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2013/01/promises-promises-on-uc-retiree-health.html, http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2017/03/deeper-significance.html, http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2017/08/quoth-lawyers-livermore.html, and http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2017/12/promises-not-forever.html.