N.J. judge files lawsuit against new
pension and health benefit increases for public workers
Friday, July 22, 2011
New Jersey’s
public worker pension and health benefits increases should be revoked for state
judges because they unconstitutionally slash their salaries and undermine
judicial independence, a state Superior Court judge claims in a lawsuit filed
Thursday.
The
complaint, filed Thursday by Superior Court Judge Paul DePascale,
who sits in Hudson
County, is the first
legal challenge to the landmark health and benefit law enacted last month.
State public employee unions angered by the changes are also vowing to go to
court.
The
complaint says the law runs counter to the part of the state constitution that
says the salaries of the Supreme Court justices and Superior Court judges
"shall not be diminished during their term of appointment."
"It
diminishes the salary of all justices and judges appointed before the enactment
of the subject legislation during their term of appointment and, by doing so,
unconstitutionally and adversely (affects) the public and the independence of
the judiciary," DePascale’s attorney, Justin Walder of Roseland, wrote.
Gov. Chris
Christie’s spokesman Michael Drewniak fired back,
saying judges fare far better than other public workers.
"Of all
classes of New Jersey
state employees, judges of the Superior Court have enjoyed the lowest pension
contribution rate and received the richest pension benefits," Drewniak said. "Judge DePascale
should probably just say thank you and look forward to a comfortable
retirement."
Set by law,
judicial salaries range from $165,000 for Superior Court trial judges,
including DePascale, to $192,795 for Supreme Court
Chief Justice Stuart Rabner. New Jersey now has 430 judges.
Drewniak said before changes judges’ contributions
covered less than 10 percent of their pensions, while other public workers
contributed about half. He said the average annual pension for a retired judge
in the Judicial Pension System is $107,540.
DePascale, however, said in his court filing that his
deductions will increase "steadily and dramatically" over the next
seven years. His pension deductions would be hiked $14,849 by 2017, when he
would be paying $18,137 into the pension system, according to court filings.
The new law,
to be phased in over seven years, will make judges’ pension contributions go
from 3 to 12 percent of their annual salaries. The same law will boost the
contributions of members of the Public Employee Retirement System from 5.5
percent of their salaries to 7.5 percent over that same period.
DiPascale also said his health benefits contribution
would more than double to $5,230.86, based on state estimates that would allow
different levels of coverage, according to court papers.
Judges
currently pay 1.5 percent of their salaries toward their health care benefits.
The new law requires them to pay 35 percent of the premium cost.
The lawsuit
concedes no New Jersey court has addressed its
contention that increasing benefit contributions constitutes a salary cut, but
it noted the Delaware
Supreme Court ruled it was.
Drewniak declined to comment on the constitutional
question.
Winnie
Comfort, spokeswoman for the Administrative Office of the Courts, said Rabner is aware of the suit but has no comment. An initial
hearing before Mercer
County Assignment Judge
Linda Feinberg is set for Sept. 16.
Pension
changes took effect July 1. However, actual deductions start Oct. 14, along
with health benefits contribution hikes.
Previous Coverage:
• N.J. judge sues state, says increased pension and health benefits costs
should not apply to judges