Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

The Court of Appeal decides if the State Legislature has met its Constitution obligation to determine if judicial salaries should be adjusted

The Court of Appeal decides if the State Legislature has met its Constitution obligation to determine if judicial salaries should be adjusted
Matter of Maron v Silver, 2010 NY Slip Op 01528, Decided on February 23, 2010, Court of Appeals*

The Court of Appeals has ruled on the lawsuit initiated by a number of judges challenging the State Legislature?s failure to increase the salaries of the State?s Judiciary since 1998.

Maron and the other plaintiffs contended that ?due to the lack of a cost-of-living increase for more than 11 years, judges no longer earn salaries that are appropriate given the significance of their position in our tri-partite form of government and the role they play in ensuring the rights of all members of society.? They argued that such legislative inaction has resulted in the ?real value? of judicial salaries declining between 25% to 33% since 1998.

The majority opinion provides a brief historic prospective of the events leading to these lawsuits, noting that in 2006, the Judiciary submitted to then Governor Pataki, as part of its proposed annual budget, a request to fund salary adjustments retroactive to April 1, 2005 in an effort to restore the rates of compensation paid State court judges with parity with federal judicial salaries. The proposal failed because the ?Legislature and the Governor could not agree on a pay increase for the legislators themselves.?

In 2007, then Governor Spitzer included in his Executive Budget funds to provide for judicial pay raises, retroactive to April 1, 2005, which, if implemented, would have placed salaries of State Supreme Court justices at an amount roughly on a par with federal judicial compensation.

The Legislature removed that provision from the budget but the Senate passed a bill (2007 NY Senate Bill S5313) increasing judicial compensation, this time retroactive to January 1, 2007, and calling for the creation of a commission to review future salary increases for both judges and legislators. Governor Spitzer refused to support this legislation, however, unless the Legislature enacted campaign finance and ethics reform measures.

Two months later, the Governor expressed support for a "judges only" pay bill. The Senate subsequently passed another bill (2007 NY Senate Bill S6550) providing for an increase in judicial salaries, this time without any corresponding increase for legislators. It also called for the establishment of a commission to examine future increases in judicial salaries taking into account the needs of the Judiciary and the State's ability to pay. The Assembly refused to act on that bill because it did not provide for an increase in legislative pay.

In 2008 Governor Paterson and the Legislature approved a budget for 2008-2009 that included $48 million for judicial salary increases but it was a so-called "dry appropriation," requiring further legislation before the increases in salaries therein provided could be paid ? legislation that was never enacted.

In the words of the Court of Appeals: ?Although all parties to this litigation agree that Article VI justices and judges have earned and deserve a salary increase, the failure of the Legislature and the Executive to come to an agreement on legislation effecting a pay increase has led to the continuing inertia underlying this dispute.?

Describing the situation whereby the Court of Appeals is required to adjudicate the constitutional issues relative to an underlying matter upon which all have agreed ?unfortunate,? the Court said that its decision constituted an effort to strike the appropriate balance between preserving the independence of the Judiciary and avoiding encroachment on the budget-making authority of the Legislature.

The court concluded that judicial compensation in present and future budget deliberations cannot depend on unrelated policy initiatives or legislative compensation adjustments. While whether judicial compensation should be adjusted, and by how much, is within the province of the Legislature, ?whether the Legislature has met its constitutional obligations in that regard is within the province of this Court.?

Holding that ?as a matter of law, the State defendants' failure to consider judicial compensation on the merits violates the Separation of Powers Doctrine,? the case was remanded to Supreme Court with the expectation there would be ?expeditious legislative consideration of the matter.?

The full text of the ruling is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_01528.htm

* Judge Smith dissents in an opinion. Chief Judge Lippman took no part in deciding this matter.

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on February 24, 2010 (boomark / email).