State Ex Rel. Moody v. Gainer

377 S.E.2d 648, 180 W. Va. 514, 1988 W. Va. LEXIS 230
CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 9, 1988
Docket18450
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 377 S.E.2d 648 (State Ex Rel. Moody v. Gainer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering West Virginia Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State Ex Rel. Moody v. Gainer, 377 S.E.2d 648, 180 W. Va. 514, 1988 W. Va. LEXIS 230 (W. Va. 1988).

Opinion

BROTHERTON, Justice:

This proceeding in mandamus was filed by the magistrates from Lewis County alleging that the statute which sets their salaries, W.Va.Code § 50-1-3, violates the Equal Protection principles of both the United States and West Virginia Constitutions. West Virginia Code § 50-1-3 (1988) provides that magistrates serving populations of 10,000 or less be paid a salary of $19,000, while magistrates serving 10,000 to less than 15,000 in population and those serving 15,000 or more both receive $25,-125. 1 For purposes of determining the population served by each magistrate, the population of the county shall be divided by the number of magistrates authorized for that county. 2

The petitioners admit that Lewis County has a population of 18,813 and two magistrates, and thus, each magistrate is paid $19,000. However, they contend that they “handle” as many or more cases than the larger population counties where the magistrates receive the higher salary. For that reason, the petitioners argue that the compensation system of W.Va.Code § 50-1-3 (1988) is arbitrary and does not bear a rational relationship to the purposes of the statute.

We have addressed this issue and other issues relating to the magistrate salary system on several occasions. In Donaldson v. Gainer, 170 W.Va. 300, 294 S.E.2d 103 (1982), the plaintiffs, a group of magistrates and staff personnel, raised a constitutional challenge to the compensation system set forth in W.Va.Code § 50-1-3 (1981), and alleged they were entitled to additional pay due to an increase in county population. Although we concluded that a statutory classification based on population would violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection if it bore no rational relation to the statutory purpose, we declined to determine if W.Va.Code § 50-1-3 (1981) violated those principles because of insufficient evidence. The magistrates were, however, granted salary increases based on the increased population effective the beginning of the next fiscal year.

The issue was next raised in State ex rel. the West Virginia Magistrates Association v. Gainer, 175 W.Va. 359, 332 S.E.2d 814 (1985). The Magistrates Association specifically challenged the constitutionality of the population-based compensation statute. After analyzing the 1983 Annual Report on Magistrate Activity, we noted the disparity in judicial functions between the small and large county magistrates. We found that the basis for the legislative clas *516 sification was not “wholly irrelevant” to the achievement of the State’s objective. We therefore concluded that the population-based system of W.Va.Code § 50-1-3 (1984) did not violate Equal Protection principles. Id. 175 W.Va. at 362, 332 S.E.2d at 816, 818.

The final case, State ex rel. Longanacre v. Crabtree, 177 W.Va. 132, 350 S.E.2d 760 (1986), dealt with the remaining issue of whether the legislature could carve out exceptions to the salary system within the same population classification. We concluded that the section of W.Va.Code § 50-1-3 which created salary exceptions within the same population category violated equal protection concepts. Further, we noted the respondents failed to show any specific facts or present any legislative history which would provide a rational basis for the classification. 3 The legislature was then allowed time in which to correct the problem. The result was the 1987 amended version of W.Va.Code § 50-1-3 (1987), which provides for only two salary classifications without individual exceptions. 4

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “[n]o State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It has been established that Art. VI, sec. 39 of the West Virginia Constitution parallels the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Donaldson, 170 W.Va. at 306, 294 S.E.2d at 108; State ex rel. Piccirillo v. City of Follansbee, 160 W.Va. 329, 233 S.E.2d 419 (1977). Thus, the issue on appeal is whether the plaintiffs’ economic equal protection rights have been violated by § 50-1-3 of the West Virginia Code which authorizes a salary commensurate with the smaller county magistrates while “handling” as many or more cases than magistrates in some of the larger counties.

The equal protection standard which governs economic classifications was set forth in McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 81 S.Ct. 1101, 6 L.Ed.2d 393 (1961). In McGowan, the United States Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment permitted the states a wide scope of discretion in enacting laws which treated groups of citizens differently. Specifically, the Court ruled that:

The constitutional safeguard is offended only if the classification rests on grounds wholly irrelevant to the achievement of the State’s objective. State legislatures are presumed to have acted within their constitutional power despite the fact that, in practice, their laws result in some inequality. A statutory discrimination will not be set aside if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it.

366 U.S. at 425-26, 81 S.Ct. at 1105, 6 L.Ed.2d at 399 (citations omitted). Further, in State ex rel. Heck’s v. Gates, et al., 149 W.Va. 421, 141 S.E.2d 369 (1965) at syllabus point 8, we reiterated that “[t]he well settled general rule is that in cases of doubt the intent of the Legislature not to exceed its constitutional powers is to be presumed and the courts are required to favor the construction which would consider a statute to be a general law.” 5

West Virginia has consistently recognized the rational basis standard as the test for a violation of economic equal protection precepts. In Atchinson v. Erwin, 172 W.Va. 8, 302 S.E.2d 78 (1983), we defined the standard for analyzing economic equal protection questions. We stated that:

Where economic rights are concerned, we look to see whether the classification is a rational one based on social, economic, historic or geographic factors, whether it bears a reasonable relationship to a proper governmental purpose, and whether all persons within the class are treated *517 equally. Where such classification is rational and bears the requisite reasonable relationship, the statute does not violate Section 39 of Article VI of the West Virginia Constitution.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cole v. State
587 S.E.2d 314 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2003)
Bookman v. Hampshire County Commission
455 S.E.2d 814 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1995)
Largent v. West Virginia Division of Health
452 S.E.2d 42 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1994)
Opinion No.
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1991
Briscoe v. Prince George's County Health Department
593 A.2d 1109 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1991)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1991
Courtney v. State Department of Health
388 S.E.2d 491 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1989)
State Ex Rel. Deputy Sheriff's Ass'n v. County Commission
376 S.E.2d 626 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
377 S.E.2d 648, 180 W. Va. 514, 1988 W. Va. LEXIS 230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-moody-v-gainer-wva-1988.