At the same time it removes something of value to employees, HB213 does not substitute another benefit of equal value, the petition says.

"No employee will be better off, and most employees, including the Roe plaintiffs, will be seriously injured if HB213 is upheld," it reads.

The sponsor of HB213, Rep. David Clark, R-Santa Clara, argued Utah could not afford to continue this program into the future as health-care costs escalated and baby boomers and successive workers reached retirement.

Clark Waddoups, a private attorney hired to represent the state, doubts UPEA will prevail before the high court and said the petition presents nothing new.

"We think Judge Barrett gave a well-reasoned statement for his ruling when he did in court, and we believe those reasons will be fully sustained on appeal," Waddoups said. "They have not raised any arguments that he did not properly deal with."

Waddoups expects the Supreme Court will act quickly and that his firm also will act fast to file its response to the UPEA petition.

Among other things, Waddoups does not believe UPEA's petition meets the requirements for emergency relief.

UPEA has to show it has a substantial likelihood it can win on appeal, which Waddoups said the high court can look at anew. The remaining three arguments are factual arguments:

• Whether UPEA and its members will be irreparably harmed; Waddoups said the judge found there would be no irreparable harm.

• Whether it is in the public interest to grant an injunction stopping HB213 from going into effect; Waddoups said Barrett found it was actually in the public interest for the act to go into effect.

• Weighing which side would suffer the greatest hardship depending on the high court's decision. "Judge Barrett found the state needs to proceed with its business and have its legislative actions go into effect," Waddoups said.

---

E-mail: lindat@desnews.com