For nearly 25 years, the state gave within-grade pay increases to employees in the classified service of the State Merit System who rated “satisfactory” or better in their job performance appraisal. Then, on April 25, 1991, responding to a budget crisis in fiscal year 1991, the governor called for an immediate freeze on such pay hikes. The General Assembly appropriated money for within-grade wage increases in fiscal year 1992. However, it met in August 1991 and removed that money from the budget. Thereafter, the legislature refused to fund, within-grade pay increases in fiscal years 1993, 1994 and 1995.
Plaintiffs, who are employees in the classified service, brought this class action lawsuit on September 1, 1994, asserting the state government violated the State Merit System Act 1 by illegally withholding within-grade pay increases. They sought damages for breach of contract, impairment of contractual rights, and, pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, violations of constitutional rights. The trial court dismissed any claims pertaining to fiscal years 1991 and 1992, finding that they were barred by the statute of limitation. The trial court granted summary judgment to defendants upon the remaining claims, concluding that any obligation on the part of the state to pay wage increases in the future would constitute an illegal pledge of credit. Plaintiffs appeal.
1. The legislature has given the State Personnel Board authority to adopt rules and regulations effectuating the state merit system. OCGA § 45-20-4 (b) (3). When approved by the governor, the merit system rules and regulations have the force and effect of law. Id.;
Brown v. State Merit System,
The State Personnel Board adopted, and the governor approved, a rule which provided, in part:
Each employee shall be considered for a salary advance at least annually. The appointing authority may advance an employee’s salary by any number of steps up to and including step seven of the range; provided, however, that prior to such an advancement the appointing authority must execute a performance appraisal or otherwise document the reason for advancement.
Rules of the State Personnel Board, Chapter 478-1-.OA, Par. A.302. Plaintiffs argue that this rule, coupled with the state’s longstanding practice of paying annual within-grade wage increases, gave them a contractual right to be paid such increases. See
Clark v. State Personnel Bd.,
We assume, arguendo, that a rule which requires the state to
consider
salary increases, also requires the state to
give
salary increases. Nevertheless, we hold that, unless the General Assembly authorized the expenditure of salary increases for a given fiscal year, see
Busbee v. Ga. Conference, American Assn. of Univ. Professors,
2. OCGA § 9-3-22 provides that actions for the recovery of wages accruing under a law respecting the payment of wages must be brought within two years after the right of action accrues.
City of Atlanta v. Adams,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
OCGA § 45-20-1 et seq.