About 860 state employees retired by Dec. 31 - more than double the previous year.

Teddy Cramer's quandary was common among state workers. After nearly 30 years working for the State of Utah Cramer had second thoughts about retiring Dec. 15 to preserve her medical benefits.

Then the justices decided to take the case. They will hear oral arguments this afternoon.

The Utah Public Employees Association (UPEA) and five state workers have sued to preserve a program that allows state workers to trade eight hours of unused sick leave for a month of post-retirement medical benefits. Third District Judge William Barrett threw out their claims just a week before employees' deadline to leave. UPEA appealed. A new law, approved by lawmakers last year, has been put on hold pending resolution of the court fight.

Four weeks ago, Cramer decided to save herself another month of emotional turmoil and retired without waiting for the justices to rule. Her last day on the job was "horrible."

"I kept going back and forth, back and forth," Cramer said. "When I left work that day, I honestly didn't know what I was going to do."

Lawmakers offered the retirement benefit to state workers 20 years ago, in part to make up for low government salaries. But state leaders changed the benefit during the 2005 Legislature. Starting Jan. 1, state workers have to invest 25 percent of the value of their saved sick leave in a 401(k). The rest will be converted into a medical savings account based on employees' salaries at retirement. Some workers could have lost years of medical coverage.

State attorneys argue lawmakers were acting in their role as guardians of the public's interest when they decided to phase out the unused sick leave program. They worried ballooning health insurance costs and new government accounting standards would jeopardize the state's AAA bond rating.

Attorney Clark Waddoups argued in his brief asking the court to let the law go into effect that the case is little more than a policy dispute. The employees "disagree with the Legislature's conclusion that changing economic realities and looming tax consequences required it to make changes to the program. They also disagree with the ultimate solution the Legislature, after careful consideration and debate, deemed was best for the state."

The employee association argues lawmakers and the governor have essentially broken a contract with state workers. By changing the program mid-contract, state leaders have taken workers' property and thus violated their constitutional rights. The law has forced employees to change their retirement dates, live off their savings and search for part-time jobs.

"The sacrifices [the legislation] requires of state employees are substantial," UPEA attorney Benson Hathaway wrote in his brief asking the court for an injunction. The law "breaks the state's long-standing promises and diminishes its integrity and trustworthiness."

Caught in the middle, state workers still are smarting from what many consider to be forced retirement.

State Tax Commission analyst Roger Ford left one month short of his 30-year anniversary to save his sick leave. Now, the 56-year-old is "halfheartedly" looking for a part-time job.

Cramer, 55, says if she hadn't been afraid of losing more than three years of medical coverage, she would have worked for the state another five years. She says the change in the sick leave policy is just the first incremental cut in state employees' benefits.

"I wanted to get out while the getting was good," Cramer said.