Appeals Court: Magistrates Don't Have Same Guarantees As Teachers | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's note: The author of this post is Michael Lowrey, who is a contributor for the Carolina Journal, John Hood Publisher.

Unlike tenure contract provisions, magistrate raises are based on service time and can be suspended by NCGA


    At times, state law has granted pay raises to some classes of employees after they've been in a job for a certain amount of time. Can the General Assembly abolish such automatic raises proactively? The answer, according to the state's second highest court, is "yes."

    Magistrates' pay is defined by statute. Under the compensation scheme created by the General Assembly, there's a beginning pay grade. Beyond that are six higher pay levels - known as "steps" - which magistrates reach when they have spent a set amount of time at the previous level. In 2009, during the depths of the Great Recession, the General Assembly suspended step pay promotions; they were restarted as of July 1, 2014. Just before the step pay increases resumed, a group of magistrates filled a class-action lawsuit against the state. The magistrates claimed that the pay increase schedule in the statute amounted to a vested contractual right and that the state had breached this contract when it suspended the step pay increases.

    A Superior Court held that the statute did not create any such contractual rights and dismissed the lawsuit. The magistrates then brought their claim to the Court of Appeals.

    Are magistrates like teachers?

    Like the lower court, the appeals court was not persuaded that magistrates had a right to automatic step pay increases.

    "In the present case, we hold that plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of showing that the Salary Statute creates a binding contract right for magistrates to receive a certain salary in the future for work performed in the future," wrote Judge Chris Dillon for the court. (Emphasis in decision.)

  • "Rather, the General Assembly is free to amend the Salary Statute so long as, in doing so, the General Assembly does not reduce a magistrate's salary for work already performed."

    Before the appeals court, a key precedent was the N.C. Supreme Court's recent holding in N.C. Ass'n. of Educators, the teacher tenure case. In that case, the high court held that:

  • Construing a statute to create contractual rights in the absence of an expression of unequivocal intent would be at best ill-advised, binding the hands of future sessions of the legislature and obstructing or preventing subsequent revisions and repeals. We are deeply reluctant to limit drastically the essential powers of a legislative body by finding a contract created by statute without compelling supporting evidence.

    The N.C. Supreme Court rejected the legislature's attempt to remove enhanced job protections from teachers who already had obtained career status. The high court concluded that those teachers had entered into contacts with local school districts including the promise of tenure, not because the wording of the state statute created an enforceable future contract.

    The Supreme Court left undisturbed the Court of Appeals' determination that the General Assembly could eliminate the prospect of tenure for teachers who hadn't spent enough time on the job to achieve career status.

    "The magistrates here are much like the teachers in N.C. Ass'n. of Educators who had not yet worked the requisite number of years to have a contractual right to career status," wrote Dillon.

  • "Here, a magistrate could not have a contractual right to receive a higher salary in a future year simply until the magistrate completed work in that future year. The actions of the General Assembly in suspending step increases for future work did not take away any benefit already earned by plaintiffs, whereas in N.C. Ass'n of Educators, the successful plaintiffs had already worked the requisite years to earn career status."

    Court of Appeals decisions are binding interpretations of state law unless overruled by the state Supreme Court. As the decision by the three-judge panel of the appeals court was unanimous, the high court is not required to hear the case if the magistrates seek an appeal.

    The case is Adams v. State of NC (15-1275).
Go Back


Leave a Guest Comment

Your Name or Alias
Your Email Address ( your email address will not be published)
Enter Your Comment ( no code or urls allowed, text only please )




Will Corrupt Democrat AG Loretta Lynch Allow This to Proceed? Carolina Journal, Editorials, Op-Ed & Politics Fayetteville's Bush-League Stadium Plan


HbAD0

Latest Op-Ed & Politics

far left sugar daddy has also funded anti-Israel groups and politicians in US
Be careful what you wish for, you may get it
America needs to wake up and get its priorities right
Former President Donald Trump suggested this week that if he becomes president again, he might allow Prince Harry to be deported.
It's a New Year, which means it's time to make resolutions — even for prominent evangelical leaders. The Babylon Bee asked the following well-known figures in the faith what they hope to accomplish in 2024:
Vice President Kamala Harris will visit a Minnesota Planned Parenthood clinic, reportedly the first time a president or vice president has visited an abortion facility.

HbAD1

An eight-mile stretch of the Blue Ridge Parkway near Asheville has been temporarily closed due to a string of “human and bear interactions,” the National Parks Service announced.
University of Wisconsin tried to punish conservatives for the fact that liberals regularly commit crimes to silence opposition
most voters think EU officials not doing a good job on illegal immigration
Come from behind by GOP candidate is a blueprint to 2024
Biden spending and energy policies to blame

HbAD2

Tuberculosis carried by illegal invaders has already infected Texas cattle

HbAD3

 
Back to Top