State officials say Utah was facing a looming crisis with the program. In five years, the cost of the program nearly doubled and was expected to grow by 300 percent in the next 10 years. Estimates show that over the next 25 years the state would have had to put aside at least $285 million for supplemental health insurance.

In the ruling written by associate chief justice Michael Wilkins, the Utah high court said that HB213 was constitutional because an employee does not have a "present property interest" in redeeming their sick leave until they actually retire.

Although they handed the state a victory, justices did have some critical words for the Legislature and state officials.

Wilkins indicated he did not respond well to threats, insinuated or otherwise. "If media reports are accurate of threats by members of the Legislature to withhold a salary increase for all state employees generally, and judicial salaries in particular, in an effort to force this court to act more quickly or to reach a certain result, then those making such threats fail to grasp the very core of the separation of powers," Wilkins wrote.

He added that the Attorney General's Office suggested that a negative ruling against the state might impact judicial retirement benefits. Wilkins wrote such a suggestion "might also be perceived as an unwise effort to appeal to personal interests."

Justice Ronald Nehring criticized the Legislature for foggy wording in its policies that led state employees to the wrong conclusion. Nehring wrote "Any legislative body that chooses to adopt as a strategy the notion that there is victory in opacity" would be "betraying the trust of the people."

The high court, however, permitted state workers 30 days to retire under the previous program, at which time the high court's injunction in the case will be lifted.

---

E-mail: gfattah@desnews.com; lindat@desnews.com