Judges and Judiciary
Jun. 22, 2016
State to partly undo landmark ruling on judge pay, while retaining appeal on case
Set on curbing judicial pay, Gov. Jerry Brown intends to sign a law backed by the California Judges Association that partly wipes out a landmark ruling regarding judge back pay, with the state also continuing to appeal the rest of the pro-judge court decision.
Daily Journal Staff Writer
Set on curbing judicial pay, Gov. Jerry Brown intends to sign a law backed by the California Judges Association that partly wipes out a landmark ruling regarding judge back pay, with the state also continuing to appeal the rest of the pro-judge court decision.
Section 22 of Senate Bill 848, trailer legislation accompanying the annual budget bill the Legislature passed last week, will erase Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Elihu M. Berle's ruling that a certified class of 3,400 current and former state court judges are due 10 percent interest on the salary and benefits owed to them since 2008.
Moreover, H.D. Palmer, a spokesman from Brown's office, said on Monday the state will continue its appeal of Berle's ruling, which found the state violated California statute in not paying judges their scheduled salary increases and retirement benefits amid the Great Recession when the state was regularly furloughing public employees. Mallano v. Chiang, BC533770 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Jan. 21, 2014).
The legislation, which the governor is expected to sign before the fiscal year ends on June 30, is fiercely opposed by Raoul D. Kennedy, of counsel at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and lawyer for named plaintiff Robert M. Mallano, a retired court of Appeal Presiding Justice. Kennedy said the interest payments are approximately one-third of the up to $35 million current and retired judges are owed per Berle's ruling.
As to the state continuing the appeal, Kennedy said, "They're unhappy about not just the interest portion of the award. I'm disappointed they are going to continue to waste the taxpayers' money on appeal but not surprised."
But Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Eric C. Taylor, president of the California Judges Association, the state's biggest judicial lobbying group, said the trailer bill could have been a lot worse for judges.
"There was sentiment there needed to be a very significant change in the statute," Taylor said, with the governor and Legislature considering stripping judges of their statutorily guaranteed salaries and benefits per Government Code, Section 68203.
According to Taylor, his group was afforded "no negotiations" with the governor, but were instead "informed about what was coming" and given a chance to provide input.
In his December order, Berle found judicial salaries and benefits are a "self-executing appropriation" with formulas that the Legislature lacks discretion to change unless it amends the underlying statute.
The trailer bill does not change the statute but it replaces the 10 percent interest Berle outlined with the state's Pooled Money Investment Account, which "reflects the state's interest earning and is the same way we calculate interest owed in many other state matters," Palmer said. The state interest rate is about 0.5 percent.
Not clear is how many judges support the change as the California Judges Association is not the last word on judicial opinion with another judge's association, the Alliance of California Judges, now lobbying Sacramento.
Alliance member Steve White, a Sacramento County Superior Court Judge, said Monday that his organization - which purports to represent more than 500 bench officers - is against the measure, citing in part a lack of consulting with the state. "The judges got played," White said.
matthew_blake@dailyjournal.com
Matthew Blake
matthew_blake@dailyjournal.com
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com