Helgeland v. Wisconsin Municipalities
| Decision Date | 28 September 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 2005AP2540.,2005AP2540. |
| Citation | 2006 WI App 216,724 N.W.2d 208 |
| Parties | Jody HELGELAND, Jessie Tanner, Virginia Wolf, Carol Schumacher, Diane Schermann, Michelle Collins, Megan Sapnar, Ingrid Ankerson, Eloise McPike, Janice Barnett, Jayne Dunnum and Robin Timm, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. WISCONSIN MUNICIPALITIES, Appellant,<SMALL><SUP>†</SUP></SMALL> Wisconsin State Senate and Assembly, Co-Appellant,<SMALL><SUP>†</SUP></SMALL> Department of Employee Trust Funds, Employee Trust Funds Board, Eric Stanchfield and Group Insurance Board, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
On behalf of the co-appellant, the cause was submitted on the briefs of Glen Lavy of Alliance Defense Fund, Scottsdale, Arizona, and Krystal Williams-Oby of Alliance Defense Fund, Madison.
On behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents, the cause was submitted on the briefs of Linda Roberson of Balisle & Roberson, Madison; Laurence J. Dupuis of ACLU of Wisconsin Foundation, Inc., Milwaukee; John A. Knight of American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Chicago, Illinois; and Rose A. Saxe and James D. Esseks of American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, New York.
On behalf of the defendants-respondents, the cause was submitted on the brief of Christopher J. Blythe and Jennifer Sloan Lattis, assistant attorneys general, and Peggy A. Lautenschlager, attorney general.
Before DYKMAN, VERGERONT and HIGGINBOTHAM, JJ.
¶ 1
This is a suit challenging the constitutionality of statutes administered by a state agency. The plaintiffs in this case filed a declaratory judgment action challenging the constitutionality of WIS. STAT. §§ 40.02 and 103.10(3) (2003-04).1 The Wisconsin State Senate and State Assembly (the Legislature) and eight Wisconsin Municipalities (the Municipalities) sought to intervene in the action, but the circuit court denied their motions to intervene. Both potential intervenors appeal, arguing they should be granted intervention as a matter of right under WIS. STAT. § 803.09(1) or alternatively, permissive intervention under § 803.09(2). The Municipalities separately argue that they should be joined sua sponte under either WIS. STAT. § 803.03(1)(b) or WIS. STAT. § 806.04(11).
¶ 2 We conclude that the Legislature and the Municipalities are not entitled to intervention as a matter of right because the Legislature presents no interest sufficiently related to and potentially impaired by the declaratory judgment action, and the Municipalities' interests are adequately represented by the defendants in this case. Regarding the motions for permissive intervention, we conclude that the circuit court properly denied the Legislature's motion because the Legislature did not have a "defense" within the meaning of WIS. STAT. § 803.09(2). As to the Municipalities, we conclude that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in deciding that allowing the Municipalities to intervene would result in undue delay. We therefore affirm the circuit court's denial of the Legislature's and Municipalities' motions to intervene. We further conclude that the circuit court properly denied the Municipalities' motion to be joined sua sponte under WIS. STAT. § 803.03 or WIS. STAT. § 806.04(11) because their interests are adequately represented by the defendants. Thus, we also affirm this part of the circuit court's order.
¶ 3 Jody Helgeland and five other current or former state employees, along with their same-sex domestic partners,2 comprise the plaintiffs (collectively referred to as "Helgeland") in this case. Helgeland filed a declaratory judgment action challenging the constitutionality of WIS. STAT. § 40.02(20),3 which defines "dependent" for purposes of state employee health insurance eligibility, and of WIS. STAT. § 103.10,4 which defines those family members with a serious health condition that an employee may take family leave to care for. Helgeland argues that these provisions violate the equal protection guarantees of WIS. CONST. art. I, § 15 by providing married state employees with health insurance, sick leave carryover, and family leave benefits enabling them to care for their spouses, while denying similarly situated state employees in same-sex intimate partnerships the same benefits. Helgeland argues that under these statutory provisions, state employees in same-sex domestic partnerships are deprived of their constitutional right to equal protection on the basis of their sexual orientation, sex and marital status.
¶ 4 In her amended complaint Helgeland named as defendants the Department of Employee Trust Funds (DETF) and other state actors6 responsible for the administration of state employee benefit plans. DETF is represented in this action by the Wisconsin Department of Justice, with Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager and Assistant Attorney General Christopher Blythe serving as DETF's counsel. The Legislature and the Municipalities moved to intervene in this lawsuit as a matter of right under WIS. STAT. § 803.09(1) or, alternatively, by permissive intervention under § 803.09(2). As part of their briefing in support of their motion for intervention, the Municipalities additionally argued that they should be joined sua sponte as necessary parties under either WIS. STAT. § 803.03(1)(b) or WIS. STAT. § 806.04(11). Following the submission of briefs, affidavits and other evidence, and oral argument the circuit court denied the motions for intervention and declined to join the Municipalities. Both the Legislature and the Municipalities appeal.
¶ 5 The Legislature and Municipalities both argue that the circuit court erred in not granting their motions to intervene as a matter of right under WIS. STAT. § 803.09(1).7 Whether to allow intervention as a matter of right under § 803.09(1) is a question of law, which we review de novo. Armada Broad., Inc. v. Stirn, 183 Wis.2d 463, 470, 516 N.W.2d 357 (1994) (citing State ex rel. Bilder v. Township of Delavan, 112 Wis.2d 539, 549, 334 N.W.2d 252 (1983)). A movant must meet four requirements to intervene as a matter of right: (1) that the motion to intervene be made in a timely fashion; (2) that the movant claim an interest sufficiently related to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) that the movant be situated such that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect that interest; and (4) that the movant's interest not be adequately represented by existing parties. See Bilder, 112 Wis.2d at 545, 334 N.W.2d 252.
¶ 6 While these statutory requirements are well established, we "have no precise formula for determining whether a potential intervenor meets the requirements of § 803.09(1), STATS., and is thus entitled to intervene in a lawsuit." Wolff v. Town of Jamestown, 229 Wis.2d 738, 742, 601 N.W.2d 301 (Ct.App.1999). Rather, we evaluate the motion to intervene practically, not technically, "with an eye toward `disposing of lawsuits by involving as many apparently concerned persons as is compatible with efficiency and due process.'" Id. at 742-43, 601 N.W.2d 301. The purpose of this approach is to strike a balance between two potentially conflicting objectives underlying the statute: the protection of an efficient judiciary through the resolution of related issues in a single lawsuit, and the protection of an original party's ability to conduct its own lawsuit without undue complications. Id. at 743, 601 N.W.2d 301. Thus, we allow intervention as a matter of right only where the intervenor is "necessary to the adjudication of the action." City of Madison v. WERC, 2000 WI 39, ¶ 11 n. 11, 234 Wis.2d 550, 610 N.W.2d 94 (citing White House Milk Co. v. Thomson, 275 Wis. 243, 247, 81 N.W.2d 725 (1957)).
¶ 7 DETF does not dispute that both the Legislature's and the Municipalities' motions to intervene were made in a timely fashion. Thus, the first statutory requirement for intervention of right under WIS. STAT. § 803.09(1) is satisfied. We therefore turn our attention to the remaining three requirements, addressing their applicability first to the Legislature and then to the Municipalities, and weighing the facts and circumstances of each potential intervenor's claims "against the background of the policies underlying the intervention rule," to determine whether intervention is necessary for the proper adjudication of this case. Bilder, 112 Wis.2d at 549, 334 N.W.2d 252.
¶ 8 With the statute's underlying policy of achieving balance between efficiency and due process in mind, we examine the interrelated second and third statutory requirements of WIS. STAT. § 803.09(1) in conjunction with each other, i.e., whether the Legislature has an interest sufficiently related to the subject of this declaratory judgment action, and whether the disposition of this action may impair or impede the Legislature's ability to protect such an interest. We conclude for the reasons discussed below that the Legislature has not claimed a sufficiently related interest, and that even if it had, the disposition of this suit will not impair or impede the Legislature's ability to protect such an interest. Having so concluded, we need not reach the fourth, "adequate representation," prong of the § 803.09(1) test.8
¶ 9 The Legislature argues that it has three interests at stake which could be impaired or impeded by this lawsuit if it is not allowed to intervene: (1) its prerogative of establishing public policy; (2) its desire to defend the constitutionality of the public policy it has established regarding employee benefits;9 and (3) its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Helgeland v. Wisconsin Municipalities
...municipalities are currently enrolled in DETF' health care plans. The court of appeals reached the same conclusion, Helgeland v. Wisconsin Municipalities, 2006 WI App 216, ¶ 19, 296 Wis.2d 880, 724 N.W.2d 208, but the majority inexplicably does not. The majority concludes that, since the mu......
-
Voces De La Frontera, Inc. v. Clarke
...and where the review is of a question of law, which we review independently of the trial court in any event. See Helgeland v. Wisconsin Municipalities, 2006 WI App 216, ¶ 9 n. 9, 296 Wis.2d 880, 724 N.W.2d 208.4 Sheriff Clarke argues that the federal FOIA supports his interpretation of 8 C.......
-
Rise, Inc. v. Wis. Elections Comm'n
...so minimal as to write the requirement completely out of the rule." Helgeland v. Wisconsin Municipalities, 2006 WI.App. 216, ¶20, 296 Wis.2d 880, 724 N.W.2d 208 (quoted omitted). ¶33 For the following reasons, the Whites do not carry their burden, even though the burden is minimal. ¶34 The ......
-
State v. Davis
...issue is a matter of state-wide importance or interest. See Helgeland v. Wis. Municipalities, 2006 WI App 216, ¶ 9 n. 9, 296 Wis.2d 880, 724 N.W.2d 208 (matter of law); Estate of Hegarty ex rel. Hegarty v. Beauchaine, 2001 WI App 300, ¶¶ 11–12, 249 Wis.2d 142, 638 N.W.2d 355 (state-wide imp......
-
Wisconsin Supreme Court rules cities can't intervene in state action.
...intervention. The court of appeals affirmed in a published decision, Helgeland v. Wis. Municipalities, 2006 WI App 216, 296 Wis.2d 880, 724 N.W.2d 208. The court of appeals concluded that the municipalities met the first three requirements for intervention as of right, but that the state wa......