Home -> Law Blog Directory -> State Law Blogs -> Showmeblawgs

State Law

: Showmeblawgs

By John Ashcroft Institute for Constitutional Studies

Follow up: Missouri Supreme Court finds no equal protection problem in state law that allowed counties to contribute lower retirement fund contributions for full time attorneys hired before August 28 2001 than those hired after that date. Missouri Prosecuting Attorneys and Circuit Attorneys Retirement System, an Agency of the State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Pemiscot County, et al., Appellants.: SC88956 The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's construction of the relevant statutes, but reversed and remanded (sent back) the case because the trial court did not rule on the retirement system's claim that the statutory scheme for prosecutors' retirement compensation in chapter 56 violated the equal protection clauses of the federal and state constitutions. On remand, the trial court reversed its earlier judgment, ruling that the disparity in retirement compensation for prosecutors who became full-time before August 28, 2001, and those who became full-time after that date violated equal protection. Specifically, the trial court declared subsection 3 of section 56.363 to be unconstitutional and ordered it stricken from the rest of the section. The county appeals. REVERSED. Court en banc holds: Because there is a rational basis for the disparity in compensation for prosecutors in third-class counties who became full-time before August 28, 2001, and those who became full-time after that date, there is no equal protection violation, and the trial court erred in holding there was. Because the retirement system makes no claim that the classifications set forth in chapter 56 impact a suspect class or that they impinge on a fundamental right, the statute will withstand constitutional challenge if it bears some rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose. Amendments to section 56.807 show a rational basis for the disparity. In 2001, the monthly contribution for a third-class county with a full-time prosecutor increased from $375 to $1,290.67, but only for those counties that elected to make their prosecutor full-time after the amendment's August 28, 2001, effective date, reflecting the legislature's intent to impose on the counties no greater obligation to the retirement fund than that which existed when the voters approved a prosecutor's full-time status. In addition, a 2003 amendment to section 56.807 reduced the amount of a county's month contribution to $187 for prosecutors who became full-time before August 28, 2001, and to $646 for those who became full-time after that date, allowing county commissions to elect to pay a full-time retirement benefit even for prosecutors who became full-time before August 28, 2001. Whatever changes come in statutory retirement compensation for full-time prosecutors in third-class counties, there still is a rational basis for the disparity, as voters in counties that approved the full-time status before August 28, 2001, did so when the retirement compensation was a fixed amount and without knowledge of subsequent changes in the compensation amounts.

Full post as published by Showmeblawgs on July 03, 2008 (boomark / email).