Dillard, et al. v. Musgrove, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2001-CP-00247-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-13-2003 Opinion Author: Smith, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Supplemental retirement plan - Equal protection Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., Waller, Carlson and Graves, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Pittman, C.J., Concurs With Separate Written Opinion Joined By Smith, P.J., Waller and Carlson, JJ. Waller, J., Concurs With Separate Written Opinion Joined By Pittman, C.J., Smith, P.J., and Carlson, J. Non Participating Judge(s): Cobb and Diaz, JJ. Dissenting Author : Easley, J. Dissenting Author : McRae, P.J. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-18-2001 Appealed from: Hinds County Chancery Court Judge: Lawrence J. Franck Disposition: The chancery court denied Dillard's motion for summary judgment and granted the Appellees' motion to dismiss. Case Number: G2000-1167 |
|
| Note: | PITTMAN, C.J., WALLER, CARLSON AND GRAVES, JJ., CONCUR. EASLEY, J., DISSENTS WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION. PITTMAN, C.J., CONCURS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY SMITH, P.J., WALLER AND CARLSON,JJ. WALLER, J., CONCURS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY PITTMAN, C.J., SMITH, P.J., AND CARLSON, J. McRAE, P.J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION. COBB AND DIAZ, JJ., NOT PARTICIPATING. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | W. O. "Chet" Dillard and Others in Like or Similar Circumstances |
PRO SE
E. MICHAEL MARKS |
||
| Appellee: | Governor Ronnie Musgrove, Lieutenant Governor Amy Tuck, House Speaker Tim Ford, and The Public Employees Retirement System of the State of Mississippi in Their Official Capacity and Not Individually | ROGER GOOGE DAVID B. MILLER |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Supplemental retirement plan - Equal protection |
| Summary of the Facts: | W. O. “Chet” Dillard filed a complaint alleging that the Supplemental Legislative Retirement Plan violates his equal protection rights guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution since legislators and the Lieutenant Governor receive retirement benefits under both the Public Employees' Retirement System and the Plan while other state employees only receive benefits under PERS. The chancery court denied Dillard's motion for summary judgment and granted the motion to dismiss filed by Governor Ronnie Musgrove, Lieutenant Governor Amy Tuck, House Speaker Ford, and PERS. Dillard appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The issue of whether a specified portion of a branch of state government and select groups of another branch can supplement over and above the general retirement system is one of first impression. When providing varying benefits to different classes of employees, the only requirement is to look to see whether the distinction has a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest. Since the statute at issue does not interfere with a fundamental right and does not create a suspect class, it violates the equal protection clause only if it is not rationally or reasonably related to a proper legislative purpose. The rational bases for the enactment of the Plan include the inherent uncertainty in holding a legislative office, the hours during which the legislators are on call to their constituents, the time taken away from other gainful employment or business enterprise, and the need to attract capable, qualified persons to these elected positions. Therefore, there was a reasonable basis for the Legislature to create the Plan and a rational relationship between its provisions and legitimate State interests. The proper forum to address Dillard’s concerns is the Legislature. Because the benefits which Dillard receives under PERS are in no way diminished by the Plan, he has failed to state a claim which could be deemed a violation of the equal protection clause. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
