Amendment to Civil Service Law §167(8) does not violate the compensation clause for certain judges set out in Article VI, §25[a] of the State Constitution
Bransten v State of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 08168, Court of Appeals
In 2011 the State-employee unions, in the course of collective bargaining, agreed to a percentage reduction to the State's employer contributions for health insurance to avoid layoff, salary freezes and unpaid furloughs. This negotiated agreement was reflected in an amendment to §167.8 of the Civil Service Law.*
The question addressed in Bransten: Does Civil Service Law §167(8), as amended, authorize a reduction of the State's contribution to health insurance benefits for State employees, including members of the State judiciary? With respect to judges the court concluded that the State's contribution for health insurance premiums is not "judicial compensation" protected from diminution and salary deductions for health insurance contributions does not singling out the judiciary for disadvantageous treatment.
The court concluded that "[a] contribution to health care premiums, which varies from year to year, is not compensation and although the reduction of the employer's health insurance contributions "indirectly diminishes judicial compensation," the Legislature has not singled out judges for disadvantageous treatment. Where, as here, the reduction applies to all State employees, there is not even a suggestion that judges are being targeted.
These reductions in the State's "employer contributions for health insurance" were also applied to retired judges and other retired employees of the State as the employer notwithstanding the fact that such retirees were not in danger of suffering " layoff, salary freezes and unpaid furloughs" nor were they members of a collective bargaining unit within the meaning of the Taylor Law [Article 14 of the Civil Service Law Article].
The court concluded that "[a] contribution to health care premiums, which varies from year to year, is not compensation and although the reduction of the employer's health insurance contributions "indirectly diminishes judicial compensation," the Legislature has not singled out judges for disadvantageous treatment. Where, as here, the reduction applies to all State employees, there is not even a suggestion that judges are being targeted.
These reductions in the State's "employer contributions for health insurance" were also applied to retired judges and other retired employees of the State as the employer notwithstanding the fact that such retirees were not in danger of suffering " layoff, salary freezes and unpaid furloughs" nor were they members of a collective bargaining unit within the meaning of the Taylor Law [Article 14 of the Civil Service Law Article].
The decision, however, apparently directly addresses only the impact of the change on active employees. The issue of whether the reduction was lawfully applied to pre-amendment retirees was not specifically addressed by the Court of Appeals.
Significantly, Judge Dillon, in a concurring opinion, noted the court had, "[b]y concluding that a direct diminution of judicial salary has not been mathematically established, in dollar terms," did not reach the secondary question of whether the State's reduced percentage contributions toward health care premiums for the judiciary and its retirees was accomplished in a discriminatory or non-discriminatory manner as compared with other employees of the State" and "[a]ccordingly, the judgment should be reversed without prejudice to plaintiffs recommencing a new action, if they be so advised."
* §167.8 of the Civil Service Law was amended by §2 of Chapter 491 of the Laws of 2011 to read as follows [old text stuck out, new text underlined]:
* §167.8 of the Civil Service Law was amended by §2 of Chapter 491 of the Laws of 2011 to read as follows [
8. Notwithstanding any inconsistent provision of law, where and to the extent that an agreement between the state and an employee organization entered into pursuant to article fourteen of this chapter so provides, the state cost of premium or subscription charges for eligible employees covered by such agreement may be [increased] modified pursuant to the terms of such agreement [and for a duration provided by such agreement and pursuant to rules and regulations as may be established by the president. Such increase in state cost shall only apply during the period of eligibility provided by such agreement and shall not be applied during retirement]. The president, with the approval of the director of the budget, may extend the modified state cost of premium or subscription charges for employees or retirees not subject to an agreement referenced above and shall promulgate the necessary rules or regulations to implement this provision.
The decision is posted on the Internet at: