A 30-day rule almost erased their benefits - until the judges stepped in
A Washington appeals court just made it harder for public employers to run out the clock on pension disputes.
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, ruled on July 27, 2026 that two retired community college instructors could pursue claims over their retirement benefits in superior court - and that they had three years from retirement to do it, not the 30 days the State wanted.
The case turned on how public pension claims are treated under state law. The board that administers retirement plans for Washington's community and technical colleges had denied or reduced supplemental retirement benefits for both instructors. The State then argued their lawsuits were too late.
Here is why the timing mattered. Both employees paid into a board retirement plan that offered a supplemental benefit tied to "Years of Service." In 2016, the board rewrote that definition to count only "unbroken" employment, treating a "break in service" as a gap that could cost credit. One instructor had taken a four year break to care for his children before returning to teach. The other had a single quarter off. Both later saw their supplemental benefits denied.
They sued. One retired in 2017 and filed in 2019; the other retired in 2020 and filed in 2021.
The State's position was that the Administrative Procedure Act governed these determinations. Under that law, anyone wanting to challenge an agency action has 30 days to petition a court. Because neither instructor filed within 30 days of the board's denial, the State said, their claims were dead.
The court disagreed. It held that a pension impairment claim is a distinct kind of claim rooted in the state constitution, and that decades of state Supreme Court rulings set a three year limit that starts at retirement. On that clock, both filings were on time.
For HR and benefits professionals, the practical signal sits in how the board communicated. The court noted that neither the denial letter nor the later email told the retirees a 30-day window had started. Under the State's reading, an employee could lose earned benefits without ever being warned the clock was ticking.
The court drew a pointed contrast with federal benefits law. It observed that ERISA requires plan administrators to spell out review procedures and time limits when they deny a claim - a safeguard the State's version of its own process lacked.
The appeals court affirmed, letting the retirees' claims move ahead in superior court.
