|
No. 121672
| Annabelle
R. Harvey, Beneficiary of |
|
Chester
E. Kasiborski, Jr. (313) 961-1900 |
| Paul Harvey, Deceased, and Michael F.
Merritt, |
|
|
|
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
|
|
|
| and |
|
|
|
Bruce A. Fox,
|
|
|
|
Plaintiff,
|
|
|
|
vs
(Appeal from
Ct of Appeals)
|
|
|
|
(Ingham
-- Glazer, L.)
|
|
|
| State of Michigan, et al, |
|
Thomas L. Casey |
|
Defendants-Appellants.
|
|
Stephen M. Rideout (517) 373-1174 |
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiffs-Appellees' Brief
on Appeal>>
Defendants-Appellants' Brief on Appeal>>
Defendants-Appellants' Reply Brief>>
Background
In 1994, the plaintiffs, retired "outstate" district judges,
sued the State of Michigan, the Department of Management and Budget,
the Bureau of Retirement Services, and the Judges Retirement Board.
The plaintiffs contended that they were denied equal protection under
the Michigan Constitution. They based their claim on provisions in the
Judges Retirement Act that treat judges of the 36th District in Detroit
differently than outstate judges. The statute provides that 36th District
Court judges are entitled to a retirement benefit calculated on a compensation
level including both the salary paid to them by the state and the salary
paid to them by the district control unit of the 36th District Court.
Other district court judges are paid a retirement benefit based on compensation
including only the salary paid by the state. The applicable statute
has been in place since 1980. Ingham County Circuit Judge Lawrence M.
Glazer granted summary disposition in favor of the defendants and dismissed
the case, finding that there was no equal protection violation. The
Court of Appeals reversed in an unpublished opinion, holding that the
trial court should have used the "heightened or intermediate level
rather than the rational basis test" used by the trial court. Under
the "rational basis" test, the state must show that a statutory
classification is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
Under the more stringent intermediate level test, the state must show
that the classification scheme furthers an important government interest.
On remand, the trial court again ruled that there was no equal protection
violation even under the intermediate level of scrutiny. The Court of
Appeals again reversed, in a published opinion, and remanded for further
proceedings. The panel concluded that, whatever historical reasons might
have justified treating 36th District judges differently in 1980, those
historical facts could no longer justify more favorable benefits for
those judges. The defendants appeal.
|
