The issue of the retirement of law enforcement officers (LEO) is on the minds of many federal employees when they make decisions about their retirement planning and timing. Federal employees pay for their retirement through deductions from their paychecks. LEOs are entitled to more money in their pensions and pay additional paycheck deductions to earn that right.

A very disturbing and not so uncommon event occurs when the federal employee approaching retirement learns for the first time that, although they have paid the additional premium to obtain LEO status, the government now challenges the employee’s LEO retirement status. , claiming that the employee should never have been classified as LEO. The government then contends that it made a mistake in accepting the higher deductions from the paycheck and is willing to return the increased premiums to the employee with interest; however, the employee loses his LEO pension.

To be eligible for LEO retirement, federal law requires that employee duties primarily involve the investigation, apprehension, or detention of individuals suspected of offenses against US criminal laws. This is distinguished from positions that involve maintenance of law and order, the protection of life and property, and the protection or inspection of violations of the law that do not qualify as a LEO retirement credit.

The Federal Circuit in a 2001 case, Watson v. Department of the Navy, established several parameters to determine if an employee is considered LEO. He sought the very purpose of creating the subject’s position. The court also examined whether criminal investigation, apprehension and detention tasks occupy a substantial part of the individual’s working time during a typical work cycle and whether such tasks are assigned on a regular and recurring basis.

The Watson Court then created a five-part test to determine LEO status based on whether the position involved: (1) custody of property or prosecution of detained criminals; (2) a young entry age; (3) a mandatory retirement age; (4) physically demanding work; and (5) the employee is exposed to danger or danger. The intent of Watson’s decision was clearly to define more strictly the requirements for LEO consideration. The court ruled that the Appellant, James A. Watson, had duties that involved the investigation, apprehension, or detention of criminals or suspected criminals, but that these were not his primary duties. As such, it did not prevail.

Federal employees who are planning to retire or who simply need to verify whether or not they are eligible for LEO should compile their job descriptions and have them reviewed by an attorney practicing in this area. The employee should also be able to write a summary for his attorney stating his daily duties and a list of witnesses who can attest to the primary and secondary duties of the employee. There is nothing worse than preparing for retirement, only to later find that your pension is considerably less than planned.