State ex rel. Lee v. Ferguson

• Decision Date: 17 December 1975
• Docket Number: No. 74-932,74-932
• Citation: 44 Ohio St.2d 159,339 N.E.2d 624
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court
• Parties: , 22 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 633, 73 O.O.2d 458 The STATE ex rel. LEE v. FERGUSON, Auditor of State, et al.

Page 159

44 Ohio St.2d 159

339 N.E.2d 624, 22 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 633, 73 O.O.2d 458

The STATE ex rel. LEE v. FERGUSON, Auditor of State, et al.

No. 74-932.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Dec. 17, 1975.

Relator, William H. Lee, filed a complaint in mandamus in this court seeking to compel respondents, the Auditor of State, Treasurer of State and the Director of Administrative Services, to pay him for the period from December 26, 1971, through March 10, 1972, the difference between the hourly rate of $2.52, which he received for that period, and $2.90 per hour.

An agreed statement of facts filed by the parties to the action provides the information essential to a determination of the cause. It reads in part:

'1. Relator, William H. Lee, is a classified employee of the state of Ohio, and is and was at the time in question classified as Storekeeper II.

'2. On January 15, 1972, the 109th General Assembly passed Senate Bill No. 147 and the bill was signed by the Governor on January 20, 1972. Senate Bill No. 147 changed the rates of pay for employees in the classified state service to be effective at the beginning of the pay period, including January 1, 1972.

'3. Relator, William Lee, during the period from December 26, 1971 through March 10, 1972, was paid at the rate of $2.52 per hour. The rate of pay for his job contained in Senate Bill No. 147, applicable for this period of time, was $2.90 per hour.

'* * * '7. The Ohio Supreme Court issued a mandate in case No. 72-102 directing the Auditor of State, the Treasurer of State, and the Director of the Department of State Personnel, to pay the increases provided in Senate Bill No. 147. The federal Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals enjoined the state of Ohio on October 25, 1973, 'restraining the state of Ohio and its officers from paying salary and wage increases provided for in the pay bill to the extent they exceed the amount authorized by the Pay Board.'

'8. The Economic Stabilization Act authorizing the wage and price freeze expired on May 1, 1974 (sic).

'9. The Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion on May 25 (sic), 1975, affirming the decision of the Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals.'

Relator prays that this court '* * * order that respondents pay to him the full amount of salary owed to him as specified in Senate Bill No. 147, retroactive to the beginning of the pay period, which included January 1, 1972, and for such other and further relief to which he may be entitled by law.'

Lucas, Prendergast, Albright, Gibson, Brown & Newman, and John A. Brown, Columbus, for relator.

William J. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Thomas V. Martin, Columbus, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

In State, ex rel. Fry, v. Ferguson (1973), 34 Ohio St.2d 252, 298 N.E.2d 129, the court allowed writs of mandamus compelling respondents therein, including the Auditor and Treasurer of State, to pay classified state employees at the rates of pay provided in S.B.No.147. It was the court's view, at page 256, 298 N.E.2d at 132, in that case 'that the federal law regulating the pay of state employees does not supersede the state statute.'

After the decision in Fry, supra, the United States in October 1973, obtained in the Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals an injunction restraining the state of Ohio from violating the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970, as amended, and from paying the salary increases provided for in the pay bill. United States v. Ohio (1973), 487 F.2d 936. The judgment of the Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals was affirmed in May 1975, Fry v. United States (1975), 421 U.S. 542, 95 S.Ct. 1792, 44 L.Ed.2d 363, which was after the Economic Stabilization Act had expired on April 30, 1974.

Relator cites United States v. California (1974), 504 F.2d 750. In that case the United States sought to enjoin the state of California from inplementing a state employee pay increase which the Supreme Court of California had directed state officials to pay on April 19, 1974, the decision becoming final on May 19, 1974. The action was filed by the United States on May 8, 1974, which was after expiration of the Economic Stabilization Act.

Section 218 of the Economic Stabilization Act (Section 1904 note, Title 12, U.S. Code) provided that the authority to enforce orders and regulations under the act expired on April 30, 1974, but that such expiration should not 'affect any action or...