Hon. Nigro, Hon. Silberstein, R. Nix III and W. Johns v. City of Phila.
249 C.D. 2017
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Nov 21, 2017Background
- The City of Philadelphia enacted a Salary Reduction Ordinance on April 22, 2010 that cut Board of Revision of Taxes (BRT) members’ pay (chair and secretary reduced; other members moved to per diem with an annual cap).
- City Council also adopted a Reorganization Ordinance in 2009 that attempted to eliminate the BRT; the Supreme Court later held the BRT retained its appellate/quasi‑judicial function (Board of Revision of Taxes v. City of Philadelphia).
- Several BRT members (Nigro, Silberstein, Nix; and later Johns) challenged the Salary Reduction Ordinance. In Meade the courts held the ordinance could not reduce salaries mid‑term under Pa. Const. art. III, § 27; the reduction was invalid as applied to members whose terms were ongoing.
- After Meade, the City paid backpay for affected members through the end of their existing terms; salaries for new terms (post‑2013) remained reduced. Johns (whose first appointment was after the reduction) received the reduced salary throughout his term.
- In 2014 City Council passed a Salary Restoration Ordinance repealing the Salary Reduction Ordinance; the Restoration ordinance did not contain explicit retroactivity language in its final version.
- The trial court entered judgment for the City, holding the reduction remained valid for terms commencing after enactment and the Restoration ordinance was not retroactive; the Commonwealth Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Meade invalidated the Salary Reduction Ordinance entirely (ab initio) | Commissioners: Meade rendered the ordinance void in its entirety, so members should receive pre‑reduction pay for entire new terms | City: Meade was an as‑applied decision limited to mid‑term reductions and did not void the ordinance ab initio | Held: Meade was limited to as‑applied relief; ordinance not invalid in its entirety |
| Whether the Salary Restoration Ordinance operates retroactively to April 20, 2010 | Commissioners: Repeal and preamble show intent to restore pay retroactively to effect of original reduction | City: Restoration lacks clear retroactivity language and should apply prospectively | Held: No clear, manifest intent of retroactivity in the Restoration ordinance; it is not retroactive |
| Whether Johns is barred by laches from seeking backpay for his term | Johns: (asserted claim for backpay) | City: Johns waited four years after accepting reduced pay; delay prejudiced City budgeting | Held: Johns barred by laches due to four‑year delay and prejudice to City budgeting/planning |
| Whether res judicata bars Commissioners’ claims | Commissioners: their current claim enforces Meade, not a new identical cause | City: Claims already litigated in Meade | Held: Res judicata inapplicable because the present claims (pay for new terms) were not litigated in Meade |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Revision of Taxes v. City of Philadelphia, 4 A.3d 610 (Pa. 2010) (held Reorganization Ordinance invalid to the extent it eliminated BRT’s appellate function)
- Meade v. City of Philadelphia, 65 A.3d 1031 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (held Article III, § 27 prohibits mid‑term reduction of BRT members’ salaries; as‑applied relief)
- Taggart v. Board of Directors of Canon‑McMillan Joint School System, 185 A.2d 332 (Pa. 1962) (delay in claiming public compensation can be barred by laches to protect public budgeting)
- Lehman v. Pennsylvania State Police, 839 A.2d 265 (Pa. 2003) (distinguishes facial and as‑applied constitutional challenges)
- Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Driscoll, 9 A.2d 621 (Pa. 1939) (statute may be invalid as applied to particular persons while remaining effective as to others)