Waddoups said he appreciates that the high court would want a full briefing on such a significant matter, but stopping the law while that determination is made will substantially harm the state and "leave the

upcoming legislative session and its related appropriations in disarray."

UPEA attorney Ben Hathaway argued the order is "very limited" in that it stops only part of the law from going into effect and does not have any impact on changes for sick leave accumulated after Jan. 1, 2006. "The effect is to stay any change in the state's treatment of sick leave that employees have already accumulated, without having any effect on how the state will treat sick leave to be accumulated in the future," he said in a legal brief.

Hathaway also said the state cannot argue this unduly burdens Utah government finances. Among other things, the program has been on-going for more than two decades and any extra cost involved with how already-earned sick leave is handled during the few months it would take to adequately resolve this situation is "trivial."

"Furthermore, the only available evidence is that the changes wrought by HB213 will actually increase short-term costs to the state and any savings will not be realized until employees retire years, or even decades, in the future," according to Hathaway.

Hathaway also noted that issues in this case involve substantial employee constitutional and contractual rights that merit a "thoughtful, considered response."