Cal Fire Local 2881 v. Cal. Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys.

CUÉLLAR, J.

KRUGER, J.

ZELON, J. *

KRUGER, J.

I concur in the majority opinion, which I have signed. I write separately to expand briefly on a key element of the analysis: why the opportunity to purchase additional retirement service (ARS) credits was not an employment benefit that vested by implication, as were the pension benefits at issue in **455 Betts v. Board of Administration (1978) 21 Cal.3d 859 , 148 Cal.Rptr. 158 , 582 P.2d 614 , Kern v. City of Long Beach (1947) 29 Cal.2d 848 , 179 P.2d 799 , and similar cases.

Our cases concerning the vesting of public employee pension rights are most easily understood through the lens of ordinary contract law principles. Under those principles, an implied-in-fact unilateral contract can arise from the government's offer of an employment benefit in exchange for the public employee's acceptance by entering into or continuing in public service. When the benefit is one that will be provided only in the future-like a pension-the formation of such a contract vests the right to that benefit, making the government's offer irrevocable as to employees who have worked for the deferred benefit and earned it as part of…