Cobb v. City of Malden, Civ. A. No. 52-49.

Citation105 F. Supp. 109
Decision Date28 April 1952
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 52-49.
PartiesCOBB et al. v. CITY OF MALDEN et al.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

John D. O'Reilly, Jr., Boston, Mass., for plaintiffs.

Bernard Kaplan, City Sol., Malden, Mass. for defendants.

SWEENEY, Chief Judge.

This is a class action brought by certain teachers in the public schools of Malden for themselves and others of their class against the City of Malden and most of its public officials. It seeks a declaratory judgment defining the rights of the school teachers and seeks money damages and an order for recovery of an alleged pay loss. The action is allegedly grounded on the United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 10, the Fourteenth Amendment thereto and 8 U.S.C.A. §§ 43 and 47. The defendants deny that the plaintiffs have a right to maintain this suit and deny that there has been any injury to them.

Under Massachusetts law the cities and towns are required to maintain public schools; the School Committee has general charge of the schools and school property, and has the power to elect and contract with teachers; each city and town is required to provide an amount of money sufficient for the support of the schools, and teachers employed at the discretion of the School Committee are immune from salary reduction except by a general salary revision affecting all teachers of the same salary grade. See General Laws, c. 71, § 1 et seq.

In Hayes v. City of Brockton, 313 Mass. 641, 48 N.E.2d 683, the Court held that since ultimate power to establish salaries for teachers in public schools is vested in the School Committee under General Laws, chapter 71, it is the duty of city officers framing the budget to provide for salaries of teachers as voted by the School Committee. See also Watt v. Town of Chelmsford, Mass., 104 N.E.2d 419.

In December, 1950 the School Committee of Malden adopted resolutions by which it established the compensation of the members of the class of persons on whose behalf this action is brought, at annual salaries in accordance with the salary schedules which provided for the classification of teachers upon the basis of duties, educational background, in-service study and teaching experience, and which also provided for periodic increases of salary. This action apparently met with the displeasure of the Mayor and members of the City Council, and a referendum petition was filed under Chapter 29 of the Acts of 1950, which for all intents and purposes was a new provision to allow the review of the actions of the School Committees by the taxpayers under the conditions outlined in that Chapter. A sufficient number of signatures was acquired and a special election was held on May 8, 1951 for the purpose of voting on the resolution as adopted by the School Committee. At that election, and to the question "Shall that part of the vote of the School Committee taken on December 29, 1950 requesting the City to appropriate $1,260,084.00 for `Instruction-Personal Service' * * * be approved?" there were 5,924 people who voted to approve the action of the School Committee and 7,402 who voted not to approve it.

The petitioners claim that the action of the Legislature in adopting Chapter 29 of the Acts of 1950 and the action of the city officials in failing to provide the money that was voted by the School Committee have impaired the obligations of the plaintiffs' contracts and have deprived them of property without due process of law and have denied them equal protection of the law.

I do not see any substance to any of these contentions. If we start off with the proposition that these teachers had a contract with the city by the mere resolution of the School Committee, then we could find some basis for alleging that their contracts had been impaired by the later action of the city, but as I see it all that happened was that the School Committee attempted to give an increase to the teachers which the city had a lawful right to overrule. In Gorman v. City of Peabody, 312 Mass. 560, 45 NE.2d 939, it was held that the vote of a School Committee to increase the salary of each teacher then employed was a "measure" subject to the referendum provisions of the city charter. Previous to the enactment of Chap. 29 of the Acts of 1950 the Commonwealth saw fit to constitute the Malden School Committee the sole agent to contract with the teachers. That practice was somewhat qualified with the passage of legislation entitled "An Act Providing for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Cobb v. City of Malden, 4655.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • March 13, 1953
    ...of Malden, Massachusetts, had been subjected to deprivation of their constitutional rights by the conspiratorial action of defendants. 105 F.Supp. 109. The defendants are the city of Malden, its mayor, and certain members of its Board of Aldermen and Common The complaint alleges that the te......
  • Gull v. Constam, Civ. A. No. 3504.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Colorado
    • May 22, 1952
    ......Supp. 108         Sargent and Doman, New York City, Ranger Rogers and Walter Scherer, Denver, Colo., for plaintiff. ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT