Peterson v. Hanson, 81-C-994.

• Decision Date: 18 August 1983
• Docket Number: No. 81-C-994.,81-C-994.
• Citation: 569 F. Supp. 694
• Parties: Lowell PETERSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Doris J. HANSON, as Secretary of the Department of Administration, State of Wisconsin, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Wisconsin

569 F. Supp. 694

Lowell PETERSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Doris J. HANSON, as Secretary of the Department of Administration, State of Wisconsin, Defendant.

No. 81-C-994.

United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin.

August 18, 1983.

Anderson, Fisher, Shannon O'Brien & Rice by Thomas W. Bertz, Stevens Point, Wis., for plaintiffs.

LaFollette, Sinykin, Anderson & Munson by Linda M. Clifford, Madison, Wis., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OF CERTIFICATION

MYRON L. GORDON, Senior District Judge.

The defendant in this case has moved the court to reconsider its decision and order of June 10, 1983, 565 F.Supp. 87. In that decision, I entered an order declaring that Wis.Stat. §§ 20.923(7) and (7m) were unconstitutional to the extent that they based present salaries and benefits for the plaintiffs (state court reporters) on the existence and amount of certain county supplements paid prior to August 1, 1978. I ordered that future monthly salaries paid to the plaintiffs be increased by the difference between $434 (the highest county supplement previously paid) and the portion of that court reporter's salary representing the amount of the county supplement, if any, he or she previously received. I also ordered that future salary-based benefits be accordingly adjusted.

The defendant has now asked for reconsideration of that portion of the June 10 decision

"requiring that future monthly salaries paid by the defendant to each of the plaintiffs be increased by a sum equal to the difference between $434.00 and the portion of that court reporter's salary representing the amount of the county supplement, if any, he or she previously received, and requiring that future salary-based benefits paid by the defendant to the plaintiffs be adjusted in accordance with the above-ordered salary increases."

In addition, the defendant has filed a notice of appeal to the court of appeals for the seventh circuit from the same portion of the decision.

In support of her motion for reconsideration, the defendant notes that §§ 20.923(7) and (7m) were repealed (effective May 6, 1982). The defendant has submitted an affidavit by J. Denis Moran, director of state courts, stating that a new court reporter qualification and compensation plan was implemented on June 1, 1982. Mr. Moran claims that under this plan, the salary disparities created by §§ 20.923(7) and (7m) have been eliminated for some court reporters and are in the process of being eliminated for others. Mr. Moran asserts that implementation of the relief ordered by this court will reintroduce salary disparities based on county supplements previously paid some reporters.

In their responsive brief, the plaintiffs ask that the court deny the motion for reconsideration. However, they also ask to be given an opportunity to review the effect of the June 10 order on the plaintiffs' treatment under the court reporter pay plan now in effect. They assert that there are factual issues which require resolution before that effect can be determined. The plaintiffs have included with their brief a letter from one of the plaintiffs, Wesley Gales. Mr. Gales disputes Mr. Moran's conclusions about the current pay plan's elimination of salary disparities and the effect of the June 10 order on the pay plan. However, he also suggests that certain adjustments in the plan may be necessary if the June 10 order is implemented.

The issue of liability in this case was decided on the basis of stipulated facts filed by the parties in September, 1982. The stipulations contained no mention of the repeal of Wis.Stat. §§ 20.923(7) and (7m) or of the implementation of a new pay plan, which apparently took place on June 1, 1982. No materials supplementing the September, 1982, submissions were filed with this court before the decision and order of June 10, 1983.

The issues of liability and appropriate relief in this case were decided based on the stipulations submitted by the parties; the stipulations failed to...