Braun v. Appleton Area School Dist., 90-2226

Citation473 N.W.2d 610,163 Wis.2d 966
Decision Date04 June 1991
Docket NumberNo. 90-2226,90-2226
PartiesNOTICE: UNPUBLISHED OPINION. RULE 809.23(3), RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PROVIDE THAT UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS ARE OF NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT IN LIMITED INSTANCES. Gordon J. BRAUN, Richard L. Cowles, James R. Denil, Bryan L. Hacker, Janet S. Holschbach, William S. Schultz, and Betty J. Werner, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. APPLETON AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT and Appleton Education Association, Defendants-Respondents.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Outagamie county: Philip M. Kirk, Judge.

Circuit Court, Outagamie County.

AFFIRMED.

Before CANE, P.J., and LAROCQUE and SULLIVAN, JJ.

LaROCQUE, Judge.

Gordon Braun appeals a summary judgment dismissing his challenge to the Appleton Area School District salary schedules for the 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91 school years and declaring that the collective bargaining agreements that embody these schedules are valid and binding. Braun contends that the schedules violate equal protection by discriminating against teachers for earning and reporting graduate credits before a specific date and that the schedules violate Wisconsin public policy of encouraging teachers to pursue further education. We reject Braun's arguments and affirm the trial court.

The Appleton Area School District employs approximately 800 full-time teachers, all of whom are represented by the Appleton Education Association (AEA). During the spring of 1987, the district and the AEA negotiated a contract for the period of August 1, 1987, through July 31, 1989. 1 Agreement was reached between the AEA and the district on May 3, 1988, and the AEA membership ratified the collective bargaining agreement a few days later.

The major issue negotiated in this new contract was a restructured and expanded salary schedule. The 1988-89 salary schedule is set out in full in Appendix A. Placement on the grid is determined by the following process:

1. Using the horizontal axis, determine the lane to which the teacher belongs based on the number of credits he or she earned and reported before June 3, 1988;

2. Add $1,450 to the teacher's salary as of February 2, 1988;

3. Determine the lowest step in that lane paying a salary greater than this adjusted salary;

4. Add a step.

This salary schedule differs from the previous schedule in that four steps were added on the horizontal axis, fewer credits are necessary to move horizontally from one lane to another; all credits are allowed to be counted for purposes of horizontal axis movement whereas previously graduate level credits were required, the cap on salary increases was raised from a master's degree plus fifteen credits to a master's degree plus thirty-six credits and a new formula for placement on the grid was developed.

The controversy surrounding the salary schedule concerns the anomalous result that some teachers with more experience and/or more credits received a lower salary than teachers with less experience and/or less credits. For example, Gordon Braun, a teacher with thirty-four years' experience and a master's degree plus forty-five credits, earned $39,700 during the 1988-89 school year, while a teacher with nineteen years' experience and a master's degree plus twenty-one credits earned $40,221.

The 1988-89 salary schedule was the result of extensive negotiating between the school district and the AEA. The district was concerned with the overall cost of the new salary grid, while the AEA heavily bargained for getting salary increases for more teachers more quickly than in the past. One of the main items the AEA was negotiating for was an expansion of the horizontal axis so that teachers could move over lanes more quickly.

Prior to the ratification vote, the AEA membership was given a copy of the new salary schedule along with an explanation of how it worked. At some point in time, some of the membership, as well as the AEA, became aware of the fact that certain teachers with more experience and/or credits would earn less than some teachers with less experience and/or credits. 2

The AEA later sent a memo to the membership notifying them that credits earned were to be reported by June 3, 1988, in order to be counted for initial placement on the new salary schedule. The memo further stated that credits reported after that date could still be counted for a determination of salary, but that once initial placement on the grid had been determined, horizontal advancement would be limited to one lane change per school year.

Shortly thereafter, the AEA notified the membership that they should be cautious about reporting their earned credits, because in some instances teachers would receive a higher salary if they delayed reporting credits earned until after the June 3, 1988, cutoff for initial placement on the grid. The memo concluded that "[e]ach person's situation is unique, so, before turning in any additional credits, all possibilities should be considered." Some teachers, including Braun, had, however, already reported all their earned credits.

This is a review of a summary judgment and a declaratory judgment that the collective bargaining agreement is valid and binding. We review the granting of summary judgment using the same methodology applied by the trial court. Green Spring Farms v. Kersten, 136 Wis.2d 304, 315, 401 N.W.2d 816, 820 (1987). This methodology is well known, and we need not repeat it here. See Grams v. Boss, 97 Wis.2d 332, 338-39, 294 N.W.2d 473, 476-77 (1980). We review the declaratory judgment under an abuse of discretion standard. WEAC v. WSEB, 156 Wis.2d 151, 161, 456 N.W.2d 839, 844 (1990).

Braun contends that the salary schedule denies him equal protection of the laws in violation of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution by irrationally and unfairly discriminating against him and other teachers for reporting credits earned before a certain date. We disagree.

Because Braun has not alleged the existence of a suspect classification or the deprivation of any fundamental right, see San Antonio Indep. School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 40 (1973), our inquiry is whether the state's 3 classification is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Massachusetts Bd. of Retire. v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 314 (1976). Under the rational basis test, legislative classification must be upheld if there exists any reasonable basis to justify it. In re K.C., 142 Wis.2d 906, 916, 420 N.W.2d 37, 40 (1988). It is our obligation to locate or construct, if possible, any rationale that might have influenced the state and that reasonably upholds the classification. Id.

Classifications may properly be based on a variety of economic, political or social bases. See Harris v. Kelley, 70 Wis.2d 242, 251, 234 N.W.2d 628, 632 (1975). Harmonious labor relations have also been held to be a valid public purpose insofar as an equal protection challenge is concerned. Bence v. City of Milwaukee, 107 Wis.2d 469, 484, 320 N.W.2d 199, 206 (1982). We conclude that economic considerations, as well as the interest in harmonious labor relations, satisfy the rational relation test so as to uphold the equal protection challenge to the salary schedule.

The affidavit of Henry Krokosky, an AEA spokesperson, states that the AEA and the district concluded that, despite some drawbacks, the salary schedule would generate greater career earnings over the long term for the greatest number of employees. Krokosky stated that the reformation requested by Braun and the other teachers would cost the district an estimated $800,000 to $1 million 4 and would be practically impossible because the district has a sum certain amount allocated for the salary schedule. Thus, to correct the problem, Krotosky suggests that the entire schedule would have to be lowered, which would not be beneficial in the long run for the AEA membership.

The 1988-89 salary schedule provided salary increases for all the teachers. The initial average raise was about 4.75% or $1,515 for the year. Furthermore, about 20% of the teachers moved horizontally one lane based on additional credits or because the formula picked up an additional experience increment. Braun received a salary increase. His concern over the salary schedule is that some other teachers with less experience and/or credits received larger salary increases than he did. An inequality resulting from classification does not violate equal protection unless there is an absence of a reasonable basis. Omernik v. State, 64 Wis.2d 6, 19, 218 N.W.2d 734, 742 (1974).

We conclude that the classifications created by the salary schedule are based upon a substantial distinction for equal protection purposes. See Harris, 70 Wis.2d at 252, 234 N.W.2d at 632 (classifications must be based upon substantial distinctions that make one class really different from another). A classification based upon the status of an employee as of a specific date is a substantial distinction. See United States R.R. Retire. Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 178-79 (1980) (railroad employees who retired before a certain date received lower retirement benefits than employees who were still in service as of that date); Bence, 107 Wis.2d at 486, 320 N.W.2d at 207 (municipal employees were classified according to whether they had retired before or after a specific date).

Furthermore, we conclude that the cutoff date chosen for the reporting of earned credits is not irrational. A cutoff date for reporting credits earned...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT