Opinion ID: 2582098
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the buckner plaintiffs

Text: ¶ 5 On January 6, 1995, the county sent a letter to other deputies who had filed pay equity grievances, stating that the results of the Diamant arbitration (then ongoing) would not apply to anyone who had not been part of the Diamant suit. In August 1995, nineteen of these deputies, including Buckner, filed a notice of claim alleging pay inequities. On January 23, 1996, these nineteen filed the instant suit, claiming both pay inequity and negligent misrepresentation. [1] Forty-five deputies joined the suit on February 20, 1996. A third amended complaint was filed in August 1996, adding sixty more deputies as plaintiff, for a total of 124, and including a breach of contract claim. ¶ 6 The county filed a motion to dismiss. The first judge assigned to the case denied the county's motion, ruling that the deputies' pay equity claim was not barred by section 63-30-10(1) of the Governmental Immunity Act (GIA) and that they had pled facts sufficient to state a claim for breach of contract. Subsequently, the case was reassigned to another trial judge, who held that the prior judge's ruling on the motion to dismiss established the law of the case. The court then granted partial summary judgment for the deputies on the pay equity and breach of contract claims, basing its ruling on collateral estoppel stemming from the Diamant arbitration. [2] The court then held a bench trial on the question of back pay awards to the individual deputy plaintiffs, ultimately awarding back pay to ninety-two of them. The county appeals from that judgment.