AN ACT to create and enact a new paragraph to subdivision h of subsection 3 of section 54-52-17 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to disability retirement benefit eligibility.
Summary
SB 2119 amends the North Dakota Century Code to add a new eligibility restriction for disability retirement benefits under the North Dakota Public Employees Retirement System (NDPERS). The bill provides that a member who has already reached normal retirement age or a normal retirement date, and who is eligible for an unreduced retirement benefit, may not apply for a disability retirement benefit.
In practical terms, the bill narrows access to disability retirement for employees who are already eligible to retire with full, unreduced benefits. It does not create a new benefit; instead, it clarifies that disability retirement is not available as an alternative retirement path once a member has reached standard retirement eligibility.
Impact
The bill directly amends section 54-52-17 of the North Dakota Century Code, which governs retirement benefits for public employees. Its effect is to limit the pool of NDPERS members who can seek disability retirement, likely reducing disability retirement applications from employees who are already retirement-eligible and preserving disability benefits for members who have not yet reached normal retirement status. The change affects public employees covered by NDPERS and the administration of retirement benefit claims by the retirement system.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the Senate 47-0 and the House 90-0, indicating unanimous approval among voting members in both chambers. The absence of recorded committee discussion also suggests there was little visible opposition or debate.
Contention
No significant points of contention are reflected in the available record. Because the bill simply bars disability retirement applications from members already eligible for unreduced retirement benefits, any potential concern would likely center on whether that restriction could affect employees with serious medical conditions who are also retirement-eligible. However, the unanimous votes suggest legislators did not view that issue as a major obstacle, and no specific opposing arguments are documented in the provided materials.