Case Information
_________________________________________________________
T HE U TAH C OURT OF A PPEALS
N EIL A NDERSEN , ET AL ., Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
D EPARTMENT OF C ORRECTIONS , Defendant and Appellee. Memorandum Decision No. 20131135-CA Filed March 19, 2015 Third District Court, Salt Lake Department The Honorable L.A. Dever No. 120904405 Lauren I. Scholnick and Matt W. Harrison, Attorneys for Appellants Sean D. Reyes and Peggy E. Stone, Attorneys for Appellee J UDGE J AMES Z. D AVIS authored this Memorandum Decision, in which J UDGES G REGORY K. O RME and M ICHELE M. C HRISTIANSEN
concurred.
DAVIS, Judge:
¶1 Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s ruling granting summary judgment in favor of the Utah Department of Corrections (UDOC) on Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims. We affirm. Plaintiffs are current and former transportation-unit
correctional officers. In 1996, UDOC entered into an agreement 1. The parties on appeal are not limited to those listed but also include other parties whose names appear on the notice of appeal or who have otherwise entered appearances in this court. with correctional officers who worked or anticipated working in the transportation unit. The agreement established a pay incentive amounting to a three-step pay-grade increase for transportation officers. This agreement was modified in 2000 following a dispute between UDOC and the transportation officers. The original agreement provided that an officer who left the transportation unit would lose the pay-grade steps the officer had gained by joining, but the modified agreement provided that officers who served in the transportation unit for at least three years would “not lose any steps” and would “maintain[] minimally their current rate of pay.” Officers who joined the transportation unit after the agreement was modified signed a memorandum of understanding reflecting the terms of the modified agreement. [2] In 2007, UDOC’s new executive director discontinued the
practice of providing pay incentives to officers joining the transportation unit, and officers joining the transportation unit after the incentives were discontinued did not sign the modified agreement. In 2008, UDOC shifted all employees into a “straight- line career ladder pay scale.” In response, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against UDOC, claiming that the modified agreement provides for them to maintain a three-step pay-grade differential above other UDOC employees in perpetuity after three years in the transportation unit and that UDOC breached the modified 2. Although the memorandum of understanding signed by officers who joined the transportation unit after 2000 contained slightly different language than the modified agreement, the differences are not relevant to our analysis. Therefore, for simplicity, we refer to all of these agreements collectively as “the modified agreement.” 3. Some of the plaintiffs in this case are officers who joined the transportation unit around the same time the incentive program was discontinued. The parties dispute whether these individuals are parties to the modified agreement, but in light of its grant of summary judgment to UDOC, the district court did not resolve that dispute. The issue is therefore not before us on appeal. agreement by shifting transportation officers who had signed the modified agreement into the new pay scheme.
¶4 UDOC moved for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claims,
arguing that the modified agreement unambiguously establishes
only that transportation officers who have reached the three-year
mark cannot lose their three-step raise, not that they are entitled to
maintain a three-step differential in perpetuity. Plaintiffs
responded that the language in the modified agreement pertaining
to raises and promotions makes the contract ambiguous as to
whether the three-step differential must be permanently
maintained. The district court examined the contract and
determined that “[t]here is no language in the contract that
supports the interpretation offered by Plaintiffs.” Accordingly, the
district court granted UDOC’s motion for summary judgment.
¶5 On appeal, Plaintiffs assert that the modified agreement is
ambiguous and that the district court therefore erred in granting
summary judgment to UDOC. “[A] motion for summary judgment
may not be granted if a legal conclusion is reached that an
ambiguity exists in the contract and there is a factual issue as to
what the parties intended.”
WebBank v. American Gen. Annuity Serv.
Corp.
,
¶6 A contract “is ambiguous if it is capable of more than one
reasonable interpretation because of uncertain meanings of terms,
missing terms, or other facial deficiencies.”
Daines v. Vincent
, 2008
UT 51, ¶ 25,
agreement that they contend make the agreement ambiguous. First, they examine the provision indicating that “salary increases to Transportation Unit members will minimally be benchmarked to Correctional Officers in the Division of Institutional Operations.” Plaintiffs interpret this provision as requiring “that when [non- transportation] officers receive a pay raise, former or current [transportation] Officers also receive the equivalent pay raise. This interpretation . . . would effectuate a constant pay differential whereby [current and former transportation] Officers would remain above [non-transportation] officers.” They next look to the provision indicating that an officer leaving the transportation unit “will not lose any steps, but will be able to transfer into a position that is the same as or closest to their current salary range that does not constitute a promotion, and maintains minimally their current rate of pay.” Plaintiffs interpret this provision as meaning “that the officer who received a three step increase when joining the [transportation] unit and then received all increases given [non- transportation] officers for at least the three years in [the transportation unit] . . . will come back into the ranks with a three step advantage on any [non-transportation] officer.” Finally, Plaintiffs point to the provision indicating that a transportation officer who “receives a promotion . . . will receive the same salary increase consideration that other officers receive when they are promoted.” They interpret this provision as requiring that even though a transportation officer may already be earning the typical salary of a promoted position, that officer should “receive the same percentage increase or same dollar increase that [a] promoted [non- transportation] officer [would] receive[],” which would, again, have the effect of keeping that officer three steps above non- transportation officers who followed a comparable career track. ¶8 We do not disagree with Plaintiffs that some language in the modified agreement may be ambiguous as to how transportation officers’ pay raises and promotions are to be handled as compared to those of non-transportation officers. However, the action taken by UDOC that triggered the Plaintiffs’ claims was the implementation of a new pay scheme applicable to all UDOC employees. Plaintiffs do not contend that the new pay scheme prevents transportation officers from receiving salary increases that are equivalent to those received by non-transportation officers, reduces transportation officers’ salaries when they leave the transportation unit, or precludes promoted transportation officers from receiving raises on par with those of other promoted officers. Thus, we fail to see how the ambiguities pointed out by Plaintiffs could support a determination that UDOC breached the modified agreement by implementing the new pay scheme. See Utah R. Civ. P. 56(c) (providing that summary judgment is appropriate when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and 5. There is very little in the record explaining the new pay scheme. Neither Plaintiffs’ complaint nor their briefs on appeal explain how the new pay scheme is expected to affect Plaintiffs’ ability to maintain a three-step pay-grade differential. At the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs’ counsel suggested that the new pay scheme puts a cap on an officer’s ability to obtain raises once the officer reaches a certain pay level. According to Plaintiffs’ counsel, if this scheme is applied to transportation officers, then the three-step differential of a transportation officer who reaches the highest pay level will eventually be diluted as other non-transportation officers receive salary increases. At oral argument on appeal, UDOC explained that the new pay scheme establishes minimum salaries based on years of service that would result in salary increases for officers who were earning below the minimum when they reached certain years-of-service milestones. Since transportation officers are more likely to be above the minimum when they reach these milestones, their three-step differential may be diluted as other officers making below the minimum receive years-of-service increases. However, the new pay scheme does not reduce Plaintiffs’ salaries, and Plaintiffs have pointed to nothing to suggest that the new pay scheme would preclude them from obtaining raises and promotions based on the same standards as all other correctional officers.
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law”).
Plaintiffs also rely on extrinsic evidence to support their
argument that the modified agreement was ambiguous. Although
district courts are required to “review relevant and credible
extrinsic evidence offered to demonstrate that there is in fact an
ambiguity,”
Daines
,
¶10 Because the language of the modified agreement is not reasonably subject to the interpretation advocated by Plaintiffs, we agree with the district court that it is unambiguous as to whether Plaintiffs are entitled to retain their three-step pay-grade differential in perpetuity. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of UDOC.
7. As UDOC observed at the hearing on its motion for summary judgment, “[i]n a perfect world . . . , if [a transportation officer] walked lockstep with another officer for [his or her] entire career,” the transportation officer could conceivably maintain a three-step pay-grade differential under the terms of the modified agreement.