United States District Court, D. Connecticut
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
Jeffrey Alker Meyer United States District Judge
The
Constitution protects the right of the people to equal
protection of the laws. This case involves a challenge by
Connecticut state employees to a state personnel policy that
gave more generous salary benefits to state employees who
would be promoted to supervisor positions in the future than
to state employees who had already been promoted to the same
type of supervisor positions. Because I conclude that there
are rational reasons for the State to award more generous
salary benefits prospectively only, I conclude that the
State's policy does not violate the Equal Protection
Clause of the Constitution. Accordingly, I will grant
defendants' motion to dismiss this case.
Background
I
assume the following facts to be true as alleged in the
complaint. Doc. #1. The plaintiffs are six employees of the
Connecticut Department of Social Services (DSS). In 2013,
there arose a need for DSS to fill numerous vacant
supervisory positions at its district offices. To fill these
vacancies, DSS offered to plaintiffs and other current DSS
employees an opportunity for a temporary promotion to these
supervisory positions. DSS did so in accordance with a state
employment policy known as the Temporary Service in a Higher
Classification (“TSHC”) program.
All six
of the plaintiffs accepted temporary promotions on various
dates in November and December 2013. They continued in these
positions until each of them were offered and accepted a
permanent appointment to these supervisor positions on
various dates from May 2015 to February 2017.
While
the plaintiffs were serving as temporary supervisors, they
received compensation for the higher-lever supervisor pay,
and each year they received annual step increases for their
higher-level positions. But then when they ended up accepting
permanent appointments to their supervisor positions, DSS
reverted their compensation to the pay grade that they had
received when they were first temporarily promoted to the
supervisor positions. This wiped out the annual pay step
increments that plaintiffs had received while working as
temporary supervisors and resulted in plaintiffs starting
their permanent supervisor positions at the same initial step
pay grade that was effective when they had been temporarily
promoted in 2013.
The
State eventually changed this salary policy. On March 13,
2017, after the plaintiffs had already been appointed to
their permanent positions, the head of Connecticut's
Department of Administrative Services (DAS) issued an
administrative letter that changed the terms of the TSHC
program. Doc. #1 at 14-17. Under the terms of the new policy
for the TSHC program, state employees who were henceforth
promoted from temporary supervisor positions to permanent
supervisor positions would now receive the benefit of the
compensation rate that they had received and accumulated
while serving as temporary supervisors.
This
new policy did not apply retroactively. That is, instead of
applying this new salary policy to TSHC participants like
plaintiffs who had been promoted to permanent positions
before March 13, 2017, the new policy applied only to TSHC
employees who received their permanent positions after the
date of the new policy's issuance on March 13, 2017.
According to plaintiffs, as a result of not receiving the
benefits of the State's new policy, they each suffer a
loss of between $8, 000 to $12, 000 in annual salary.
Plaintiffs
have filed this federal lawsuit against the commissioners of
the DSS and DAS claiming a violation of their right to equal
protection of the laws under the Constitution. Because they
were promoted through the TSHC program to permanent
supervisor positions before March 13, 2017, they were all
subject to what I will refer to as the “Old
Policy”-a reversion of their salaries upon
their appointment to a permanent supervisor position to the
same initial step pay grade that had applied to them in 2013
when they were temporarily promoted. Plaintiffs claim that
they are similarly situated to other employees who also
participated in the TSHC program but who happened to be
promoted to permanent supervisor positions after March 13,
2017. These other employees were subject to the benefit of
what I will call the “New Policy”-a
retention of their salary step increases that they
had accumulated while working as temporary supervisors.
Plaintiffs
complain that the failure to apply the New Policy
retroactively to them is arbitrary and not supported by any
rational reason in violation of the Equal Protection Clause
to the Constitution. Defendants have moved to dismiss the
complaint.
Discussion
The
Fourteenth Amendment provides in relevant part that no state
shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV,
§ 1. As the Supreme Court has recognized, “most
laws differentiate in some fashion between classes of
persons, ” and “[t]he Equal Protection Clause
does not forbid classifications, ” but “simply
keeps governmental decisionmakers from treating differently
persons who are in all relevant respects alike.”
Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 10 (1992).
Equal
protection cases generally fall into one of two categories.
If the governmental distinction targets a suspect class (such
as a class of persons based on race, gender, or religion) or
targets the exercise of a fundamental right (such as the
right to vote), then the governmental classification will be
subject to heightened or strict scrutiny. All other
governmental classifications need only be supported by a
rational basis. See ibid.; Winston v. City of
Syracuse, 887 F.3d 553, 560 (2d Cir. 2018).
Because
there is no claim in this case that the challenged salary
policy burdens a suspect class or a fundamental right, my
task is a limited one. I must first evaluate whether the
State has subjected plaintiffs to treatment that is different
from others who are similarly situated and, if so, determine
whether there is a rational basis for the ...