The Washington State Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) Plan 1 is a defined benefit pension plan. For members who became eligible for retirement on or before September 1, 1977, and who have at least 10 years of service credit, the retirement allowance is calculated based on a formula. The formula for PERS Plan 1 is 2% of the average final compensation (AFC) multiplied by the number of years of service. The AFC is the average of the highest consecutive 24 months of earnings. The question describes a member with 25 years of service and an AFC of \$60,000. Therefore, the annual retirement allowance is calculated as 2% (or 0.02) multiplied by \$60,000, and then multiplied by 25 years of service. Calculation: Annual Retirement Allowance = \(0.02 \times \text{Average Final Compensation} \times \text{Years of Service}\) Annual Retirement Allowance = \(0.02 \times \$60,000 \times 25\) Annual Retirement Allowance = \(\$1,200 \times 25\) Annual Retirement Allowance = \$30,000 This calculation demonstrates the direct application of the PERS Plan 1 formula for a member with the specified service and average final compensation. Understanding the structure of defined benefit plans, particularly how the average final compensation and years of service are utilized in the benefit calculation, is crucial for analyzing pension entitlements under Washington State law. The specific percentage multiplier is a key component of the plan’s design and directly impacts the benefit amount. This question tests the ability to apply these foundational principles to a given scenario.

The Washington State Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), specifically Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 49.60.180, prohibits discrimination in employment based on various protected characteristics, including sex. This protection extends to benefits provided by an employer. In Washington, employers offering health insurance plans must ensure that coverage for pregnancy-related medical conditions is provided without less favorable terms or conditions than coverage for other medical conditions. This principle is rooted in the broader concept of equal pay and equal treatment in employment, ensuring that benefits do not create a discriminatory disadvantage for employees of a particular sex. Therefore, an employer cannot deny or limit coverage for pregnancy-related services if they provide comprehensive medical benefits for other conditions, as this would constitute unlawful discrimination under WLAD. The state’s commitment to gender equality in the workplace mandates that employee benefits, including health insurance, are administered impartially and do not penalize individuals for sex-based biological differences.

The Washington State Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) is governed by specific statutes and administrative rules that dictate eligibility for disability retirement. Under Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 41.40.042, a member is eligible for disability retirement if they are determined to be totally and permanently incapacitated from performing their job duties and have at least five years of service credit. The determination of total and permanent incapacity is made by the Department of Retirement Systems (DRS) based on medical evidence and the member’s job description. The concept of “totally and permanently incapacitated” implies an inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity due to a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that is expected to result in death or to have lasted or to be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months. This is distinct from temporary disability or partial incapacity. The five-year service credit requirement is a threshold for eligibility, regardless of the severity of the disability. Therefore, a member with three years of service credit, even if totally and permanently incapacitated, would not meet the statutory requirement for disability retirement under PERS.

The Washington State Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) Plan 2 provides a defined benefit pension. Under PERS Plan 2, a member’s retirement benefit is calculated using a formula that takes into account their average final compensation (AFC) and their years of service. The AFC is typically the average of the highest consecutive 60 months of earnings. The formula for the monthly pension benefit is: \( \text{Monthly Pension} = \text{AFC} \times \text{Years of Service} \times \text{Benefit Multiplier} \). For PERS Plan 2, the benefit multiplier is 2%. This means that for each year of service, the member receives 2% of their AFC. Therefore, if a member has an AFC of $6,000 per month and 30 years of service, their monthly pension would be calculated as $6,000 \times 30 \times 0.02 = $3,600. The question asks about the initial determination of eligibility for retirement benefits under Washington’s PERS Plan 2, focusing on the role of the defined benefit formula and the calculation of the pension amount. The core concept being tested is how a pension benefit is established for a PERS Plan 2 member, which relies on the statutory formula and the member’s service and compensation history. Understanding the components of this formula is crucial for determining eligibility and the projected benefit amount. The benefit multiplier of 2% is a key element of the PERS Plan 2 formula, directly impacting the final pension amount.

The Washington State Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) Plan 2 and Plan 3 have different formulas for calculating retirement benefits. For PERS Plan 2, the benefit is calculated as 2% of the final average salary multiplied by the number of years of service. For PERS Plan 3, the benefit is a combination of a defined benefit component and a defined contribution component. The defined benefit portion is calculated as 1% of the final average salary multiplied by the number of years of service. The defined contribution portion depends on the member’s contributions and investment performance. However, when comparing the two plans regarding a specific benefit calculation scenario for a member with 25 years of service and a final average salary of $70,000, and assuming a 7% annual return for the defined contribution portion of Plan 3, we focus on the guaranteed defined benefit aspect. A PERS Plan 2 member with these parameters would receive an annual pension of \(0.02 \times \$70,000 \times 25 = \$35,000\). A PERS Plan 3 member’s defined benefit portion would be \(0.01 \times \$70,000 \times 25 = \$17,500\). The question asks about the PERS Plan 2 member’s benefit calculation, which is solely based on the defined benefit formula. Therefore, the annual pension for the PERS Plan 2 member is $35,000. This highlights the difference in the base defined benefit accrual rate between the two plans. Understanding these accrual rates is crucial for members choosing between or evaluating their current retirement plan. The complexity of Plan 3’s defined contribution component, while significant, is not directly calculable without more specific investment and contribution details, but the question specifically probes the defined benefit calculation for Plan 2.

The scenario involves a Washington State public employee’s pension benefit calculation. Specifically, it tests the understanding of how the final average salary (FAS) is determined for a member of the Washington State Department of Retirement Systems (DRS) plans, such as the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS). The FAS is generally calculated based on the highest consecutive 60 months of salary. In this case, the employee has 30 years of service credit. The pension benefit is calculated using the formula: \(Pension Benefit = Service Credit \times FAS \times Multiplier\). The multiplier for PERS Plan 1 is 2%, or 0.02. Therefore, the calculation is \(30 \text{ years} \times \$90,000 \text{ (FAS)} \times 0.02\). This results in an annual pension benefit of \(30 \times 90,000 \times 0.02 = \$54,000\). The explanation focuses on the core components of the pension calculation under Washington State law, emphasizing the importance of the final average salary and service credit in determining the retirement income. Understanding these elements is crucial for both employees planning for retirement and administrators managing pension funds within Washington’s unique regulatory framework. The calculation demonstrates the direct application of these statutory components.

The Washington State Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) program, established by the Paid Sick Leave and Family Leave Initiative (Initiative 1433) and codified in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 50.89, provides wage replacement benefits to eligible individuals for specific family or medical reasons. A key aspect of the program is the determination of an employee’s average weekly wage (AWW) to calculate the benefit amount. The AWW is generally calculated by dividing the total wages earned by the employee during a defined period by the number of weeks in that period. For the purpose of PFML, the standard calculation involves the wages earned in the last two completed calendar quarters immediately preceding the start of the leave. These wages are divided by 26 weeks to determine the AWW. The weekly benefit amount is then a percentage of this AWW, with specific tiers set by statute. For instance, the first 15% of the AWW is replaced at 90%, the next 50% of the AWW is replaced at 50%, and any amount exceeding 65% of the AWW is replaced at 30%. This tiered structure ensures that lower-wage workers receive a higher proportion of their income replacement compared to higher-wage workers. The calculation is foundational to ensuring equitable benefit distribution under the program, directly impacting the financial support an employee receives during their leave. The maximum weekly benefit is also capped by statute.

The scenario involves a multiemployer defined benefit pension plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and Washington state’s specific pension laws. The core issue is the determination of a participant’s vested benefit upon termination of employment. Washington state law, specifically RCW 49.64.020, addresses the assignment of future earnings for child support obligations. However, ERISA preempts state laws that “relate to” employee benefit plans, as established in cases like *Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.*. While child support garnishments are a recognized exception to ERISA’s anti-alienation provisions under certain circumstances (e.g., Qualified Domestic Relations Orders – QDROs), a general state law garnishment for child support, without being structured as a QDRO or falling under another specific ERISA exception, would likely be preempted. The question asks about the effect of the Washington garnishment order on the pension plan. Since the plan is subject to ERISA and the garnishment is a state law attempt to reach pension benefits that does not conform to ERISA’s exceptions for alienation, the plan administrator must disregard the state garnishment order. The vested benefit remains payable to the participant according to the plan’s terms and ERISA’s rules. Therefore, the Washington garnishment order has no legal effect on the participant’s vested pension benefit under federal law.

The Washington State Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) plan provides retirement benefits. For PERS Plan 2 members, the normal retirement age is 65. However, a member can retire early with a reduced benefit. The reduction factor for early retirement is based on the number of months by which the member’s retirement date precedes their 65th birthday. The reduction is 0.5% for each full month prior to age 65. A member retiring at age 62 and 6 months would be retiring 30 months early (360 months in 30 years – 306 months in 25.5 years = 54 months). The reduction is calculated as 54 months * 0.5% per month = 27%. Therefore, the member would receive 100% – 27% = 73% of their projected benefit at age 65. This reduction is applied to the actuarially determined benefit. Understanding these reduction factors is crucial for members planning their retirement and for administrators calculating benefit payouts under Washington State law. The concept of actuarial equivalence is also relevant, ensuring that the value of the early retirement benefit is equivalent to the value of the deferred benefit at normal retirement age, considering the time value of money and life expectancy.

The scenario describes a Washington State public employee participating in the Washington State Retirement System (WRS). The employee has accumulated service credit from multiple periods of employment, some of which may have been purchased or transferred. The question probes the specific rules governing the calculation of retirement benefits when a participant has service credit from different types of employment or periods. Under Washington Pension and Employee Benefits Law, specifically related to the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) and Teachers’ Retirement System (TRS) which are components of WRS, the calculation of a retirement allowance typically involves a formula that multiplies final average salary by a percentage of service credit. However, the complexity arises when service credit is not uniform. Washington law generally requires that each period of service credit, especially if it originates from different plan structures or has different contribution rates and benefit accrual rates, is calculated according to the rules in effect for that specific period or type of service. This often means that the overall benefit is a sum of benefits calculated for each distinct period of service, rather than a single uniform calculation applied to all service. For instance, service rendered under different PERS plans (e.g., PERS Plan 1, PERS Plan 2/3) or service transferred from other systems might have different benefit factors or eligibility requirements. Therefore, the most accurate approach to determining the retirement allowance is to apply the applicable benefit calculation rules to each distinct period of service credit and then sum these amounts. This ensures that the benefit accurately reflects the contributions and accrual rates associated with each phase of the employee’s career within the WRS.

The Washington State Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) program, established under RCW 50.89, provides wage replacement benefits to eligible employees experiencing qualifying life events. A key aspect of PFML is the calculation of weekly benefit amounts, which are determined by a tiered percentage of an employee’s average weekly wage (AWW) in Washington State. The program uses a sliding scale: 90% of the AWW up to 100% of the state average weekly wage (SAWW), and 50% of the AWW exceeding the SAWW. The SAWW is a figure published annually by the Employment Security Department. For the purpose of this question, let’s assume the SAWW for the relevant period is $1,325.00. If an employee’s AWW in Washington State is $1,650.00, their weekly benefit is calculated as follows: First, calculate 90% of the AWW up to the SAWW: \(0.90 \times \$1,325.00 = \$1,192.50\). Next, calculate the portion of the AWW that exceeds the SAWW: \(\$1,650.00 – \$1,325.00 = \$325.00\). Then, calculate 50% of this excess amount: \(0.50 \times \$325.00 = \$162.50\). Finally, sum these two amounts to determine the total weekly benefit: \(\$1,192.50 + \$162.50 = \$1,355.00\). This calculation demonstrates how the tiered benefit structure ensures that lower-wage workers receive a higher proportion of their income replacement compared to higher-wage workers, aligning with the program’s objective of providing broad economic security. The maximum weekly benefit amount is capped at 100% of the SAWW, which is $1,325.00 in this hypothetical scenario. Therefore, even though the calculation results in $1,355.00, the benefit is capped at the SAWW.

The Washington State Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), specifically Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 49.60.180, prohibits discrimination in employment based on various protected characteristics, including age. While there is no specific dollar threshold for punitive damages under WLAD for a single instance of discrimination, the law allows for damages that are intended to punish the wrongdoer and deter similar conduct in the future. These damages are determined by the trier of fact based on the severity of the discrimination, the impact on the victim, and the employer’s intent or recklessness. Therefore, a claim for punitive damages under RCW 49.60.180 can be substantial and is not capped at a fixed amount for a single discriminatory act, but rather is subject to the discretion of the court or jury. The concept of “actual damages” in Washington employment discrimination cases, as per RCW 49.60.030(2), can include lost wages, emotional distress, and other out-of-pocket losses. Punitive damages are awarded in addition to actual damages when the employer acted with malice or reckless indifference to the employee’s federally protected rights. The purpose is to punish and deter.

The Washington State Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) program, established under RCW 50.89.010 et seq., provides wage replacement benefits to eligible employees for specific family or medical reasons. One key aspect is the definition of “family member” for whom an employee can take leave. Under RCW 50.89.020(10), a “family member” includes an employee’s child, parent, spouse, registered domestic partner, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, or any other person with whom the employee has a “significant social relationship.” The determination of a “significant social relationship” is a crucial, fact-specific inquiry. It is not defined by legal status but rather by the depth and nature of the bond. Factors considered typically include the duration and intimacy of the relationship, mutual reliance, and the emotional and financial support provided. This broad definition aims to encompass individuals who function as family, even if not legally recognized as such, reflecting a modern understanding of family structures. For instance, a close friend who has lived with and provided care for the employee for an extended period, or a chosen family member, could potentially qualify. The law requires a case-by-case assessment to ensure the intent of providing support during a qualifying event is met.

The Washington State Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) Plan 1 provides specific rules regarding the calculation of disability retirement benefits. For a member who becomes totally and permanently disabled and is not eligible for Social Security disability benefits, the benefit is calculated based on the member’s service credit and average final compensation. The law dictates that if a member has at least ten years of service credit, the disability benefit is calculated as if the member had attained the age of 60 and completed 20 years of service, or the member’s actual service credit if greater. The average final compensation is determined by averaging the member’s earnings for the 24 consecutive months of highest service. In this scenario, Ms. Anya Sharma has 15 years of service credit and an average final compensation of \$75,000. She is not eligible for Social Security disability benefits. According to PERS Plan 1 regulations for disability retirement, her benefit is calculated as if she had attained the age of 60 and completed 20 years of service, or her actual service credit if greater. Since 20 years is greater than her actual 15 years of service credit, the calculation uses the assumed 20 years. The disability retirement benefit is then 2% of the average final compensation multiplied by the assumed years of service. Calculation: Benefit = \(2\%\) * Average Final Compensation * Assumed Years of Service Benefit = \(0.02\) * \$75,000 * 20 Benefit = \$1,500 * 20 Benefit = \$30,000 per year This annual benefit is then typically paid in monthly installments. Monthly Benefit = \$30,000 / 12 = \$2,500 Therefore, Ms. Sharma’s monthly disability retirement benefit under PERS Plan 1, in the absence of Social Security disability eligibility, would be \$2,500. This calculation is a direct application of the statutory provisions for disability retirement benefits under Washington’s PERS Plan 1, emphasizing the concept of assumed service credit when actual service is less than the statutory threshold for full benefit calculation. The average final compensation is a critical component, and the 2% multiplier is standard for this plan.

The scenario involves a Washington State public employee participating in the Washington State Department of Retirement Systems (DRS) plans. The question pertains to the distribution of benefits upon the death of a vested member who has not yet commenced receiving retirement benefits. Washington State law, specifically Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 41.50.090, governs the disposition of retirement benefits for members of state retirement systems. This statute outlines that if a member dies after becoming vested but before commencing retirement benefits, the accumulated contributions are payable to their designated beneficiary. If the member had elected a retirement option that provided for a survivor benefit, and the beneficiary is the designated survivor, then the survivor benefit would be paid. However, the question specifies that no retirement benefits had commenced and no specific survivor option had been elected prior to death. In such a case, the default disposition is the return of accumulated contributions to the beneficiary. The accumulated contributions are the total amount the member contributed to the retirement system, plus any accumulated interest, as defined by the specific retirement plan rules under DRS. This amount is distinct from any potential death benefit or survivor pension that would only arise if a specific option had been chosen or if a separate life insurance component was part of the plan. Therefore, the correct distribution is the member’s accumulated contributions.

The scenario involves a Washington State public employee’s pension plan, specifically concerning the crediting of service for periods of unpaid leave. Washington State law, particularly Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 41.40.110, governs the crediting of service for members of the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS). This statute outlines the conditions under which various types of service, including those related to unpaid leave, can be purchased or credited. For unpaid leave, members typically have a window of time to purchase the service credit, often by paying both the employee and employer contributions plus interest. The key element is the member’s right to elect to purchase this service credit within a specified period after returning to service. The question tests the understanding of when this right to purchase service credit for unpaid leave accrues and becomes actionable under Washington State law, focusing on the elective nature of such purchases. The correct option reflects the legal framework where the member has the option to buy back the service credit after returning to employment.

The Washington State Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) Plan 1 is a defined benefit pension plan. Under PERS Plan 1, a member’s retirement allowance is calculated based on a formula that considers their final average salary and their years of service. The formula for PERS Plan 1 is: \(0.02 \times \text{Years of Service} \times \text{Final Average Salary}\). The question asks about the minimum age a member can retire with an unreduced retirement allowance. For PERS Plan 1, the normal retirement age is 65. However, members can retire earlier with a reduced allowance. The question specifically asks about an *unreduced* allowance, which is tied to reaching the normal retirement age. Therefore, the minimum age for an unreduced retirement allowance under PERS Plan 1 is 65. This concept is fundamental to understanding defined benefit plan structures and early retirement provisions, differentiating between actuarially reduced benefits and full benefits. The key is identifying the normal retirement age as the threshold for unreduced benefits in this specific Washington state pension plan.

The Washington State Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) Plan 1 is a defined benefit plan. Under PERS Plan 1, a member’s retirement benefit is calculated using a formula that considers their average final compensation and their years of service. The benefit is a lifetime annuity. When a PERS Plan 1 member dies before retirement, but after becoming vested, their eligible survivor may be entitled to a survivor benefit. The specific benefit amount depends on the survivor’s relationship to the member and the options elected by the member at the time of their separation from service or retirement. For a surviving spouse, the benefit is typically a percentage of the member’s accrued retirement benefit, or if the member elected a specific survivor option, the benefit is calculated based on that election. In the absence of a specific election for a survivor benefit, and if the member dies before retirement and has a vested status, the surviving spouse is generally entitled to a benefit calculated as 50% of the member’s projected pension benefit at the time of death, provided the spouse is the sole beneficiary. This is a key provision for ensuring that the contributions made by public employees in Washington State provide a measure of financial security for their dependents in the event of premature death. The law requires that such benefits are actuarially sound and administered by the Washington State Investment Board.

The Washington State Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) program, established under Chapter 50.89 RCW, provides wage replacement benefits to eligible employees experiencing qualifying life events. A key aspect of the program is the determination of an employee’s average weekly wage (AWW) for benefit calculation purposes. The AWW is calculated by dividing the total wages earned by the employee during the qualifying period by the number of weeks in that period. The qualifying period is defined as the first four of the last five completed calendar quarters immediately preceding the start of the leave. For instance, if an employee’s leave begins in the second quarter of 2024, the qualifying period would be the first quarter of 2023 through the fourth quarter of 2023. The weekly benefit amount is then calculated as a percentage of the AWW, with a tiered system in place. Specifically, the first 50% of the AWW up to 50% of the state average weekly wage is paid at 100%, and the portion of the AWW exceeding 50% of the state average weekly wage is paid at 50%. The maximum weekly benefit is capped at 90% of the state average weekly wage. The scenario describes an employee who has earned \$30,000 over the last five completed calendar quarters. To determine the AWW for PFML benefits, we must identify the wages earned within the qualifying period, which consists of the first four of these five quarters. Assuming the \$30,000 represents wages earned evenly across all five quarters, then the wages earned in the qualifying period (four quarters) would be \(\frac{4}{5} \times \$30,000 = \$24,000\). The number of weeks in four quarters is typically 52 weeks (4 quarters x 13 weeks/quarter). Therefore, the AWW is \(\frac{\$24,000}{52 \text{ weeks}}\). This calculation results in an AWW of approximately \$461.54. The PFML program requires employers to remit premiums based on employee wages, and the benefits are administered by the Employment Security Department. Understanding the AWW calculation is crucial for both employers and employees to accurately estimate potential benefit amounts and understand premium obligations.

The scenario describes a multiemployer defined benefit pension plan established by a consortium of construction companies in Washington State. The question pertains to the proper handling of an overpayment made to a participant, Elara Vance. Washington State law, specifically concerning pension plan administration and fiduciary duties, requires that overpayments be addressed diligently and in accordance with the plan’s terms and applicable regulations. Generally, pension plans are permitted to recover overpayments from participants, provided the plan documents allow for such recovery and the recovery process adheres to legal and ethical standards. This often involves providing notice to the participant, outlining the overpayment, the amount, and the proposed recovery method. Recovery can typically be made through future benefit reductions, lump-sum repayment, or installment payments, depending on the plan’s provisions and the participant’s circumstances. The key principle is to act in the best interest of the plan and its participants while treating individual participants fairly. Recovering an overpayment does not inherently violate fiduciary duties if conducted properly. Therefore, the plan administrator should initiate a process to recover the overpaid amount from Elara Vance, following the plan’s established procedures for overpayment recovery and ensuring compliance with relevant federal and state pension laws. The recovery method should be reasonable and not unduly burdensome on the participant, consistent with the prudent administration of plan assets.

The Washington State Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) Plan 2 and Plan 3 are defined benefit and defined contribution hybrid plans, respectively. For PERS Plan 2, the retirement benefit is calculated based on a formula that includes the member’s average final compensation (AFC) and the number of years of service. The AFC is typically the average of the highest consecutive 60 months of earnings. The pension factor for PERS Plan 2 is 2% for each year of service. Therefore, the annual pension benefit is calculated as AFC * Years of Service * 0.02. For example, if a member has an AFC of $70,000 and 30 years of service, their annual pension would be $70,000 * 30 * 0.02 = $42,000. PERS Plan 3 offers a combination of a defined benefit component and a defined contribution component. The defined benefit portion is calculated similarly to Plan 2 but with a lower pension factor, typically 1% per year of service, applied to the AFC. The defined contribution portion involves member and employer contributions that grow over time with investment earnings. The total retirement benefit from Plan 3 is the sum of the projected defined benefit amount and the accumulated value of the defined contribution account. The question asks about the fundamental difference in how retirement benefits are *determined* between PERS Plan 2 and PERS Plan 3, focusing on the underlying structure of benefit calculation rather than specific contribution rates or investment performance. Plan 2’s benefit is solely determined by a formula based on service and compensation, representing a pure defined benefit. Plan 3, conversely, bases a portion of its benefit on individual investment choices and outcomes, introducing a defined contribution element. This hybrid nature is the core distinction.

The scenario describes a situation where a public employee in Washington state, a member of the Washington State Employees’ Retirement System (PERS), has elected to receive a lump-sum distribution of their accumulated contributions upon separation from service. Washington state law, specifically Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 41.50.100, governs the distribution of retirement benefits. This statute outlines the procedures and options available to members upon termination of employment. When a member separates from service and is not yet eligible for retirement benefits, they generally have the option to withdraw their accumulated contributions. This withdrawal typically includes both employee contributions and any accumulated interest earned on those contributions. The lump-sum distribution is a return of the member’s own contributions, not a retirement benefit payment which would be based on service credit and final average salary. Therefore, the correct characterization of this distribution is the return of the employee’s accumulated contributions plus any accrued interest, as per the governing statutes for public retirement systems in Washington.

The scenario describes a situation involving a Washington State public employee’s pension. Specifically, it touches upon the treatment of periods of service for pension calculations when an employee leaves public service and then returns. Under Washington State law, particularly concerning the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS), the crediting of prior service for pension purposes often depends on the circumstances of the separation and re-employment. If a member leaves service and withdraws their contributions, and then later re-enters public service, they may have the option to purchase credit for the prior service. This purchase typically involves repaying the withdrawn contributions plus interest. The interest rate and calculation method are usually prescribed by statute or administrative rules. For PERS Plan 1, the interest rate for purchasing prior service after withdrawal is generally the actuarial assumed rate of return for the system, compounded annually. Assuming the employee withdrew contributions from a period of service and is now re-entering, the calculation to determine the cost of restoring that service credit involves the withdrawn contributions, accumulated interest at the prescribed rate from the date of withdrawal to the date of repayment, and potentially a service credit purchase fee. For this specific question, the focus is on the *mechanism* for restoring service credit after a withdrawal and re-entry, which involves repaying the withdrawn contributions with interest. The question tests the understanding of how such prior service is treated and the general principle of repayment with interest, rather than a specific monetary calculation, as the exact interest rate and repayment terms would be detailed in the relevant PERS plan documents and state statutes. The core concept is that the service is not automatically restored; it must be repurchased.

The Washington State Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) Plan 2 provides a defined benefit pension. For members who separate from service before becoming eligible for a retirement annuity, the benefit calculation at retirement age is based on their final average salary and their years of service, multiplied by a benefit factor. The final average salary is generally the average of the highest consecutive 60 months of salary. The benefit factor for PERS Plan 2 is 2% (or 0.02). If a member separates from service and defers their retirement, their benefit will be calculated using the final average salary and service credit earned up to the date of separation, projected to their retirement age. The question describes a scenario where an employee separates from service after 15 years of service with a final average salary of $75,000. To calculate the estimated monthly retirement benefit at age 65, we first determine the annual pension. The formula for the annual pension is: Annual Pension = Final Average Salary × Years of Service × Benefit Factor. Annual Pension = $75,000 \times 15 \times 0.02 = $22,500. To find the monthly benefit, we divide the annual pension by 12. Monthly Benefit = $22,500 / 12 = $1,875. This calculation reflects the pension benefit an individual would receive under PERS Plan 2 if they retire at age 65 with the specified service and salary, assuming no cost-of-living adjustments or other plan modifications that could affect the final payout. Understanding the interplay between final average salary, credited service, and the plan’s benefit factor is crucial for estimating retirement income in Washington’s public pension system.

The scenario involves a Washington State public employee participating in the Washington State Retirement System (WRS). The question probes the specific rules regarding the purchase of service credit for periods of non-contributory employment. Washington law, particularly Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 41.50.130 and related administrative rules, governs the purchase of service credit. For non-contributory service, a member typically must pay both the employee and employer contributions for that period, plus interest. The interest rate is generally set by the State Investment Board and is intended to reflect the actuarial cost of the service. In this case, the member wishes to purchase 10 years of prior non-contributory service. The calculation of the cost involves determining the applicable employee and employer contribution rates for the period of service, and then applying the current statutory interest rate to the sum of these contributions from the time the service was rendered until the date of purchase. While the exact dollar amount is not provided for the calculation in the prompt, the principle is that the member must pay the full actuarial cost, which is comprised of the contributions that would have been made plus accumulated interest. This ensures that the retirement system is not adversely affected by the purchase of service credit. The phrase “full actuarial cost” encapsulates this requirement.

The Washington State Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) Plan 1, for service rendered prior to October 1, 1977, is governed by specific actuarial assumptions and benefit calculation methods that differ from later plans. For a member who retired on July 1, 2005, with 30 years of service and a final average salary of \$70,000, the calculation of their monthly pension benefit under PERS Plan 1 involves applying a service credit multiplier to the final average salary. The multiplier for Plan 1 is a fixed percentage of the final average salary for each year of service. For service rendered before October 1, 1977, the benefit is calculated using a specific actuarial factor, and for service after that date, a different factor is used. However, for the purpose of this question, we are focusing on the overall benefit calculation as it pertains to the entirety of service for a Plan 1 member. The critical aspect is understanding that PERS Plan 1 uses a defined benefit formula. The calculation for PERS Plan 1 generally involves multiplying the final average salary by a service factor. For Plan 1 members, the benefit is calculated based on a formula that typically involves a percentage of the final average salary multiplied by the number of years of service. The exact percentage can vary slightly based on the specific date of hire and retirement, but a common approach for Plan 1 is to use a percentage that is generally higher than later plans due to the structure of the defined benefit. Without the precise statutory multiplier for Plan 1 service, we can infer the general principle. For a defined benefit plan like PERS Plan 1, the benefit is directly tied to the final average salary and years of service. The explanation is designed to test the understanding of the defined benefit structure and the factors influencing it within the Washington PERS system, specifically highlighting the contrast with defined contribution plans. The question aims to assess the candidate’s knowledge of how pension benefits are determined under Washington’s public retirement systems, emphasizing the calculation methodology for a specific plan. The key is that the benefit is a pre-determined amount based on a formula, not on investment performance. The benefit calculation for PERS Plan 1, a defined benefit plan, is based on a formula that takes into account the member’s final average salary and their years of service. The Washington State Legislature periodically reviews and adjusts actuarial assumptions and benefit calculation factors for public retirement systems to ensure solvency and fairness. For PERS Plan 1 members, the benefit is calculated by multiplying the final average salary by a percentage for each year of service. This percentage is a fixed rate established by statute for Plan 1 members. The question is designed to test the conceptual understanding of how such defined benefits are calculated, rather than requiring a precise numerical outcome without all the specific statutory factors. The focus is on the mechanism of a defined benefit plan.

The scenario involves a public employee retirement system in Washington State, specifically concerning the treatment of prior service credit for an employee who transitioned between different public employment classifications. Washington’s public retirement systems, governed by the Washington State Department of Retirement Systems (DRS), have specific rules regarding the purchase or recognition of prior service credit. When an employee moves from one Washington public employer to another, especially between different retirement plans (e.g., from a plan covering general government employees to one covering school employees, or vice versa), the recognition of prior service is generally governed by inter-system reciprocity agreements or specific statutory provisions. In this case, Ms. Anya Sharma, a municipal employee in Seattle, participated in the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) Plan 2. She subsequently moved to employment with the State of Washington as a university professor, which typically places her under the Teachers’ Retirement System (TRS) Plan 2. Washington law, particularly Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 41.50, and related administrative rules, outlines the conditions under which service rendered in one system can be credited in another. Generally, for reciprocity to apply, the employee must be a member of both systems and must not have received a refund of contributions for the service being transferred. The key is that the service must be “reciprocal service” as defined by statute. RCW 41.50.135 governs the transfer of service credit between retirement systems and generally allows for the purchase of prior service if it was rendered in another Washington public retirement system. The cost of purchasing such service is typically based on an actuarial calculation to ensure the system is not financially disadvantaged. The question is about the *right* to purchase, not necessarily the cost or the immediate automatic crediting of service. The right to purchase prior service from another Washington public system, provided statutory conditions are met (like not having taken a refund), is a fundamental aspect of portability within the state’s public retirement framework. Therefore, Ms. Sharma has the right to purchase her prior PERS service credit for her TRS account, subject to DRS rules on cost and eligibility.

The scenario describes a situation where a Washington State public employee, Ms. Anya Sharma, is a member of the Washington State Department of Retirement Systems (DRS) pension plan. She has accrued service credit from multiple periods of employment, including a period of service before the implementation of the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) Plan 2. Ms. Sharma is seeking to understand how her pre-PERS Plan 2 service credit will be factored into her retirement benefit calculation under current Washington State law. Washington State law, specifically Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 41.40.042, governs the calculation of retirement benefits for PERS Plan 2 members. This statute outlines how service credit is earned and how it impacts the final retirement allowance. For service rendered prior to July 1, 1977, which falls under the scope of pre-PERS Plan 2 service, the law dictates that such service is credited at a rate of 2% of the member’s final average salary for each year of service. This rate is applied to the entire period of service prior to July 1, 1977, irrespective of whether the service occurred before the formal establishment of PERS Plan 2. The final average salary is generally determined by averaging the member’s compensation during the highest consecutive 60 months of service within the last 10 years of service. The total retirement allowance is then calculated by summing the benefits attributable to each period of service, using the applicable benefit factor for each period. Therefore, Ms. Sharma’s pre-PERS Plan 2 service credit will be factored into her total retirement benefit by applying the 2% benefit factor to her final average salary for each year of that pre-PERS Plan 2 service.

The scenario involves the Washington State Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) program, governed by RCW 50.89. Employers in Washington are required to report wages and remit premiums for their employees under this program. The calculation of the weekly benefit amount for an employee is based on their average weekly wage during a qualifying period. The statute defines the average weekly wage as the total wages earned during the first eight weeks of the qualifying period divided by eight. For an employee earning a consistent weekly wage of \$1,200, the total wages over eight weeks would be \$1,200/week * 8 weeks = \$9,600. The average weekly wage is then \$9,600 / 8 weeks = \$1,200. The weekly benefit amount is calculated as 90% of the employee’s average weekly wage up to the state’s average weekly wage, plus 50% of the portion of the average weekly wage that exceeds the state’s average weekly wage. The state’s average weekly wage for the purpose of calculating benefit amounts is set annually by the Employment Security Department. For 2024, this amount is \$1,500. Therefore, for an employee with an average weekly wage of \$1,200, the weekly benefit calculation is as follows: 90% of \$1,200, because \$1,200 is less than the state’s average weekly wage of \$1,500. This results in a weekly benefit of \(0.90 \times \$1,200 = \$1,080\). The question asks for the weekly benefit amount for an employee with an average weekly wage of \$1,200, assuming the state’s average weekly wage for benefit calculation purposes is \$1,500. Since the employee’s average weekly wage (\$1,200) is below the state average weekly wage (\$1,500), the entire average weekly wage is subject to the 90% replacement rate. Thus, the weekly benefit is \(0.90 \times \$1,200 = \$1,080\). This calculation is directly derived from the statutory formula for calculating weekly benefits under Washington’s PFML program.

The Washington State Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) Plan 2, as governed by Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 41.40, defines retirement benefits based on a member’s final average salary and creditable service. For PERS Plan 2 members, the retirement formula typically involves a multiplier applied to the final average salary. The final average salary is generally calculated as the average of the member’s highest consecutive 60 months of earnings. The benefit is then calculated by multiplying this average salary by the service credit multiplier and a factor determined by the plan. For PERS Plan 2, the standard service retirement factor is 2% per year of service. Therefore, if a member has 30 years of creditable service and a final average salary of $70,000, the annual retirement benefit would be calculated as: \( \$70,000 \times 30 \text{ years} \times 0.02 = \$42,000 \). This calculation reflects the direct application of the statutory formula for determining a member’s pension benefit. Understanding the components of this calculation, including the definition of final average salary and the applicable service retirement factor, is crucial for accurately assessing retirement income under Washington State’s public retirement systems. The question tests the application of these principles to a specific scenario, requiring knowledge of the standard formula and its components as defined by Washington law.