• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Retroactive Pay Raise Excludes Retirees - Legal?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Wet Dog

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

I retired from full time teaching on May 17, 2014. Since retiring, our union has reach a tentative agreement with the District and I expect the proposed contract will be ratified. One clause reads,

“All of the above [referring to salary schedule increases] will be effective (and retroactive to) 1/1/2014 for full-time faculty employed as of 7/1/2014.”

As written, I and other retirees would be excluded from the retroactive raise, despite the fact that we were fully employed on the date it is to apply.

Is it legal to exclude retirees in this manner?

Union officers explain that the clause was inserted to satisfy the District and avoid “complications” with the California State Teachers Retirement System. Complications? What if the clause in question were to read, "All of the above will be effective (and retroactive to) 1/1/2014 for FT faculty whose last names begin with A through G." This too would avoid STRS complications and save the District money. I see no difference between this A-G analogy and the clause as currently stated. Would the A-G clause be legal? What if the retroactive raise only applied to a certain race, gender or those of a specified sexual preference? Would this be legal? (Rhetorical)
 
Last edited:


LdiJ

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

I retired from full time teaching on May 17, 2014. Since retiring, our union has reach a tentative agreement with the District and I expect the proposed contract will be ratified. One clause reads,

“All of the above [referring to salary schedule increases] will be effective (and retroactive to) 1/1/2014 for full-time faculty employed as of 7/1/2014.”

As written, I and other retirees would be excluded from the retroactive raise, despite the fact that we were fully employed on the date it is to apply.

Is it legal to exclude retirees in this manner?

Union officers explain that the clause was inserted to satisfy the District and avoid “complications” with the California State Teachers Retirement System. Complications? What if the clause in question were to read, "All of the above will be effective (and retroactive to) 1/1/2014 for FT faculty whose last names begin with A through G." This too would avoid STRS complications and save the District money. I see no difference between this A-G analogy and the clause as currently stated. Would the A-G clause be legal? What if the retroactive raise only applied to a certain race, gender or those of a specified sexual preference? Would this be legal? (Rhetorical)
I think that the clause is legal. You were not employed as of 7/1/2014. I also agree that complications with the state retirement system would be worse than not getting the retroactive raise.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top