TRENTON — A group of state employees challenging the constitutionality of New Jersey’s new law covering pension and health benefits wants to combine their lawsuit to one brought by a Superior Court judge. A lawyer for the employees, David Fox, said today the lawsuit filed by Judge Paul DePascale was similar to that of his clients, and that the...
Superior Court Judge Paul DePascale is shown in this 2009 file photo. DePascale is suing the state, claiming the recently-passed pension and health care reforms are unconstitutional and should not apply to judges.TRENTON — A group of state employees challenging the constitutionality of New Jersey’s new law covering pension and health benefits wants to combine their lawsuit to one brought by a Superior Court judge.
A lawyer for the employees, David Fox, said today the lawsuit filed by Judge Paul DePascale was similar to that of his clients, and that the two should be consolidated in challenging the pension and health benefits law that went into effect June 28.
"We’re saying it’s the same case, said Fox, a lawyer from Livingston. "He has constitutional issues. We do as well."
But attorneys for DePascale and those identified as defendants insist the cases aren’t closely enough related to warrant consolidation and are asking Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg to keep them separate.
Feinberg, the assignment judge in Mercer County, is expected to issue a ruling on the request on Oct. 5.
DePascale, the first to file suit over the state’s new pension and health benefits package, contends the changes are unconstitutional because they run counter to the state Constitution, which prohibits the salaries of Supreme Court justices and Superior Court judges from being "diminished" while in office.
The new law, enacted June 28 but which will largely take effect Oct. 14, phases in the pension contributions of judges from 3 percent to 7 percent of their annual salaries over seven years.
Judges currently contribute 1.5 percent of their salaries toward their health care benefits. The new law requires them to pay 35 percent of the premium cost. DePascale has said that would more than double his contribution toward health benefits to $5,230.86.
Fox, who has a similar case pending in federal court, represents three firefighters, three judicial employees and a white collar Morris County employee. For those employees, the contributions are structured differently than those of the judges. Contributions are on a sliding scale based on salary.
In a seven-count complaint, the employees contend the new law violates the state Constitution by denying their right to organize and present grievances through their unions.
In addition, they contend the legislation unfairly creates classes of employees by requiring them to contribute different amounts for the same health benefits. They also claim the law creates an unconstitutional tax on their base salaries.
Moreover, they say the state Constitution forbids judicial employees, like the judges, from having their salaries cut.
But DePascale’s lawyer, Justin Walder, says the cases are only ``tangentially’’ related and opposes the consolidation.
In court papers, Walder said the Constitution addresses the salaries of judges and justices, but not other judicial employees.
Leon Sokol, the attorney representing the Senate and Assembly, said consolidation would be unfair because DePascale has not identified his clients as defendants in his lawsuit.
And Deputy Attorney General Robert Lougy, who is representing the state, the Treasury Department and state Treasurer Andrew Sidamon-Eristoff, said the cases should not be consolidated because he is seeking to dismiss DePascale’s suit, but has not taken that action against the others.
Related coverage:
Previous coverage:
• N.J. Supreme Court won't rush to hear Superior Court judge's challenge of pension overhaul
• N.J. judge sues state, says increased pension and health benefits costs should not apply to judges
• N.J. judge files lawsuit against new pension and health benefit increases for public workers
• Courts should toss judge's lawsuit over health, pension benefits