{"id":16115,"date":"2013-01-17T12:39:29","date_gmt":"2013-01-17T17:39:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/stateimpact.npr.org\/florida\/?p=16115"},"modified":"2013-01-17T12:50:00","modified_gmt":"2013-01-17T17:50:00","slug":"what-the-florida-supreme-court-pension-decision-could-mean-for-merit-pay-lawsuit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stateimpact.npr.org\/florida\/2013\/01\/17\/what-the-florida-supreme-court-pension-decision-could-mean-for-merit-pay-lawsuit\/","title":{"rendered":"What The Florida Supreme Court Pension Decision Could Mean For Merit Pay Lawsuit"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>

Stephenie Schukraft \/ Flickr<\/p>

Thursday's Florida Supreme Court decision could be cited in another legal challenge pushed by teachers.<\/p><\/div>\n

In 2011 lawmakers approved a law requiring public employees — including teachers — pay 3 percent of their salary into their retirement account.<\/p>\n

Public employee unions challenged the law<\/a>, arguing it unconstitutionally changes a contract with workers and violates workers’ right to collectively bargain pay and benefits.<\/p>\n

A circuit court overturned the law, but Thursday the Florida Supreme Court upheld the law in a 4-3 decision.<\/p>\n

The decision is likely to set a precedent when a lower court issues its decision on another teacher-related lawsuit (A decision which is expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court).<\/p>\n

That suit challenges a 2011 law, the Student Success Act<\/a>, requiring teachers to be evaluated, in part, based on student standardized test scores, requiring district to design merit pay programs to pay better performing teachers more money, and ending long-term contracts for new hires.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The court’s logic — that the law doesn’t hinder workers’ ability to negotiate moving forward — could be applied in the Student Success Act case<\/a>. The court also rejected the concept that the law abridged “effective” collective bargaining — as in reducing the leverage of workers in negotiations.<\/p>\n

“We agree,” the court wrote of the state’s argument on page 20 of the pension case decision. “Nothing…prohibits employees from collectively bargaining on the issue of retirement or benefits.”<\/p>\n

You can read the lawsuit below, in which we’ve highlighted the most important parts.<\/p>\n