Roger Lehman v. Louis J. Perret, Clerk Of Court, In His Capacity As Clerk Of Court

Supreme Court of Louisiana
March 16, 2021
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
ROGER LEHMAN
VS.
LOUIS J. PERRET, CLERK OF COURT, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS CLERK OF COURT
No.2020-CC-01485
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Louis J. Perret, In his official capacity as Clerk of Court - Applicant
Defendant; Applying For Writ Of Certiorari, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial
District Court Number(s) 2019- 6284, Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Number(s)
CW-20-00437;
_ _ _ _ _ _
March 16, 2021
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
JBM
PDG
03/16/2021 "See News Release 010 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

1
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2020-CC-01485
ROGER LEHMAN VS LOUIS J. PERRET, CLERK OF COURT, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS CLERK OF COURT
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Lafayette
PER CURIAM
WRIT GRANTED. Roger Lehman was employed by the Lafayette Parish
Clerk of Court. He was terminated for misconduct in 2002 when he was forty-four
years old, after approximately 21 years of service. In 2013, upon reaching age fifty-
five, he applied for retirement benefits. Lehman was approved and draws monthly
retirement benefits from the Louisiana Clerks’ of Court Retirement and Relief Fund
pursuant to La. R.S. 11:1521(A)(1). In 2018, the Louisiana legislature enacted La.
R.S. 13:783(F)(7), which provides for an additional retirement benefit relating to
insurance premiums. He now claims entitlement to that additional insurance benefit.
The interpretation of any statutory provision begins with the language of the
statute itself. The statute for regular retirement benefits provides:
A member or former member hired on or before December
31, 2010, shall be eligible for regular retirement benefits
if he has twelve or more years of credited service, he has
attained the age of fifty -five years or more, and he has
terminated his e mployment. La. R.S. 11:1521(A)(1)
(emphasis added).
The statute for the additional insurance benefit provides:
In the parishes of . . . Lafayette . . ., the clerk of court shall
pay, from the clerk’s salary fund, one hundred percent of
the premium costs of the group life and accidental death
and dismemberment, group health, accident, dental,
hospital, surgical, or other medical expense insurance for
any employee that retires from the . . . Lafayette P arish
clerk of court’s office . . . who is entitled to receive
monthly benefits from the Louisiana Clerks’ of Court
Retirement and Relief Fund, who has at least twenty years
of full -time service with clerk of court’s office in . . .
03/16/21

2

Lafayette Parish . . . and who is at least fifty-five years of
age. La. R.S. 13:783(F)(7) (emphasis added).
When a law is clear and unambiguous and its application does not lead to
absurd consequences, the law shall be applied as written and no further interpretation
may be made in search of the intent of the legislature. La. Civ. Code art. 9. A plain
reading of these statutes reveal the regular and added benefits have distinct
requirements. Regular retirement benefits are available to an individual who has
“terminated his employment,” while the added insurance benefit is only available to
one who “retires from” employment with the Lafayette Parish clerk of court.
Lehman’s employment with the Lafayette Parish clerk of court ended with him being
terminated for misconduct , not by retirement. See Oubre v. St. Charles P arish
Sheriff’s Office, 16-409 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/14/16), 209 So.3d 302 , 307. While he
apparently satisfies the requirements for regular retirement benefits under La. R.S.
11:1521(A)(1), he does not meet the requirements of La. R.S. 13:783(F)(7).
Our interpretation of La. R.S. 13:783(F)(7) does not lead to absurd
consequences, rather, it is consistent with the nature of retirement benefits , which
are typically linked to actuarial studies. Consequently, retirement benefits must be
clearly and unmist akably provided for or the retirement fund will not remain
actuarially sound. By the express language of the statute, Lehman is not entitled to
the additional insurance benefit. Accordingly, w e reverse the court of appeal’ s
opinion and reinstate the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Louis J. Perret,
in his official capacity as Clerk of Court.
03/16/21