The three women took the then-minister to court due to income differences relating to their status as municipal employees followed by the change to civil servant status.
The first plaintiff was hired by a municipality as a graduate educator in August 2010 and the other two plaintiffs were hired as qualified educators in June 2009 and March 2008 respectively. As the state took over the status as their employer, the first plaintiff signed an open-ended contract as an A2 employee with the Ministry of Education in August 2016. The other two plaintiffs signed open-ended contracts as B1 employees in June and July 2016.
In August 2017, a lawyer representing the three women sent Kersch a letter, highlighting that his clients had only purported to accept the state's takeover provided they were able to keep their municipal acquired rights. The lawyer continued that his clients earn less per month and had lost their family benefit in the process. The women asked for compensation, but the minister rejected the request in the same month. The three women then took the issue to the administrative court in November 2017.
The first judge to treat the case cited legislation from March 2015 concerning guarantees in compensating civil servants. The law in questions confirms that municipal employees becoming civil servants must receive the same salary. As per paragraph three in article 28, if the employee receives a lower salary as a civil servant, they have the right to a "personal indemnity supplement", which correspondents to the difference between the former and current salary.
The judge consequently ruled that the minister's decision not to grant the plaintiffs this supplement must be reformed as all three women were being paid less as civil servants. The file will be treated by Kersch's successor, Marc Hansen, and the state must cover the legal fees.
