Peter Metcalfe v. State of Alaska, Appellee

Summary

The court held that Metcalfe could not recover breach-of-contract damages for the alleged diminution of his PERS reinstatement rights because the constitutionally appropriate remedy for an unlawful retirement-benefit change is an in-system choice between benefits, not damages. It further held that his claim for declaratory and injunctive relief was prospective, was not barred by a statute of limitations, and was ripe for decision, so that claim was remanded for further proceedings. Chief Justice Fabe, concurring in part and dissenting in part, would have affirmed dismissal of the entire case because Metcalfe was no longer a PERS member when the statutory change occurred.