{"id":139,"date":"2024-12-11T18:27:43","date_gmt":"2024-12-11T18:27:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/allianceofcaliforniajudges.com\/?p=139"},"modified":"2024-12-11T18:28:33","modified_gmt":"2024-12-11T18:28:33","slug":"california-judges-say-theyre-underpaid-and-their-new-lawsuit-could-cost-taxpayers-millions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/allianceofcaliforniajudges.com\/?p=139","title":{"rendered":"California judges say they\u2019re underpaid, and their new lawsuit could cost taxpayers millions"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

by Adam Ashton<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

California judges make a good living. They earn at least $240,000 and can count on a raise just about every year, a requirement that\u2019s written into state law. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

So why do they feel shortchanged by the state?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A coalition of them argues the state has been stiffing them for years by mishandling the formula it uses to calculate their wage increases. In a new lawsuit, one such judge is demanding that the state redo the math going back almost a decade to include information that likely would have resulted in bigger raises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThere\u2019s a reason why our latest pay increases have been so puny and falling far short of the rate of inflation. The state didn\u2019t tinker with the statutory formula, but it seems to have played with the inputs,\u201d said a statement announcing the lawsuit by a group called the Alliance of California Judges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A lot of money is on the line. An appeals court justice filed a similar lawsuit a decade ago, and the state had to cough up $40 million<\/a> after losing the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The formula at the heart of the lawsuit sounds simple. State law requires that judges receive annual raises based on the \u201caverage percentage salary increase\u201d given to other California state employees. This year, judges received a 2.6% wage increase, down from 3.2% in the previous year. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the state has fouled up the math before. The earlier case filed by a retired appeals court justice, Robert Mallano, turned on a mistake the state made during the Great Recession when it had withheld judges\u2019 raises even though certain civil servants had received small pay increases. The state, ordered to recalculate judges\u2019 wages, handed them $15,000 checks for missed pay<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This time, the complaint by Sacramento Superior Court Judge Maryanne Gilliard draws attention to one way Govs. Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom raised pay for public employees without giving them substantial general salary increases. It alleges the state illegally shorted the judges by not counting some of the pay-raising perks that went into recent contracts. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Both governors signed contracts that included general salary increases of up to 4% that benefited all workers represented by a given union, plus more generous targeted raises for specific groups of employees. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The judges allege the state has been counting only the general salary increases in the formula it uses to set judicial raises \u2014 while excluding the more targeted salary adjustments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cDefendant CalHR has intentionally modified the inputs to the calculation such that active judges and justices are paid less than the salaries to which they are entitled,\u201d reads the complaint, filed in September in Los Angeles Superior Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Gilliard\u2019s attorney, Jack DiCanio, declined to answer questions for this story. Camille Travis, spokeswoman for the California Human Resources Department wouldn\u2019t discuss the lawsuit.. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gilliard\u2019s lawyers and attorneys for the state appeared before a judge last month. The state\u2019s attorneys said the department \u201chas properly calculated state employee average salary increases\u201d and that state law \u201cdoes not require the inclusion of \u2018all categories of increases\u2019 when calculating state employee average salary increases,\u2019\u201d according to a summary of the hearing<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gilliard\u2019s lawsuit names the State Controller\u2019s Office and the California Public Employees\u2019 Retirement System<\/a> as additional defendants. The controller\u2019s office manages the state payroll and would have to make adjustments to judges\u2019 checks if the lawsuit succeeds. Similarly, Gilliard\u2019s lawsuit asks CalPERS to recalculate the pensions it provides to judges. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The base pay for California judges is the third highest in the nation, according to the National Center for State Courts<\/a>. But when the cost of living is factored in, California is in the middle of the pack at 25th. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

From furloughs to real raises<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Three key dates stand out in Gilliard\u2019s complaint, with each reflecting a milestone in state labor negotiations:<\/p>\n\n\n\n