Lajoie v. Connecticut State Bd. of Labor Relations, No. 2:92-CV-1035 (JAC).

Decision Date12 October 1993
Docket NumberNo. 2:92-CV-1035 (JAC).
Citation837 F. Supp. 34
PartiesRobert J. LAJOIE and Peter D. Mattor v. CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS, Edwin S. Mak, Albert J. Rioux, Henry F. Healey, Jr., Thomas G. Martin, Clifford B. Green, Andrew C. Ocif, George R. Zeeb, Ted R. Satkowski, Frank Lucca, William A. Tremont, Roger Delsin, Connecticut State Sheriffs Association, County Sheriffs Advisory Board, Ronald F. Petronella, Margaret A. Lareau, Lowell P. Weicker, Joseph H. Harper, Jr., Jay Levin, and all other Special Deputy Sheriffs as parties having a direct interest in the outcome of the declaratory judgment.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Connecticut

Margaret J. Slez, Slez & Slez, Westport, CT, for plaintiffs.

E. Stephen Briggs, Connecticut State Bd. of Labor Relations, Wethersfield, CT, for defendants Connecticut State Bd. of Labor Relations and Margaret A. Lareau.

Stephen J. O'Neill and Michael J. Lanoue, Office of the Atty. Gen., Hartford, CT, for defendants Mak, Rioux, Healey, Martin, Green, Ocif, Zeeb, Satkowski, Lucca, Tremont, Delsin, Connecticut State Sheriffs Ass'n, and County Sheriffs Advisory Bd.

Thomas P. Clifford, Office of the Atty. Gen., Hartford, CT, for defendant Petronella.

Henry S. Cohn, Office of the Atty. Gen., Hartford, CT, for defendants Weicker and Harper.

Louis B. Blumenfeld, Cooney, Scully & Dowling, Hartford, CT, for defendant Levin.

RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS

JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Chief Judge:

This action arises out of a Connecticut statute, Public Act 92-61, which prevents special deputy sheriffs from forming a labor union to represent them in collective bargaining with the State of Connecticut. The plaintiffs contend that Public Act 92-61 is unconstitutional, and they seek an injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing that statute. The plaintiffs also seek damages from the defendants on various grounds, including the defendants' involvement in efforts to enact Public Act 92-61.

All of the defendants in this action have filed motions to dismiss. These include: (1) the Motion to Dismiss (or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment) of defendant Lareau and defendant Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations; (2) the Motion to Dismiss of defendants Mak, Rioux, Healey, Martin, Green, Ocif, Zeeb, Satkowski, Lucca, Tremont, Delsin, Connecticut State Sheriffs Association, and County Sheriffs Advisory Board; (3) the Motion to Dismiss of defendants Weicker and Harper; (4) the Motion to Dismiss of defendant Levin; and (5) the Motion to Dismiss of defendant Petronella.

Defendant Petronella's motion to dismiss was granted on July 2, 1993, absent timely objection or response of any kind. The motions to dismiss filed by the other defendants all remain pending before the court. The court heard oral argument on these motions on June 21, 1993, following which the motions were deemed ripe for decision.

BACKGROUND

The following facts, which are alleged in the complaint, must be accepted as true for purposes of these motions. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1686, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974); LaBounty v. Adler, 933 F.2d 121, 123 (2d Cir.1991).

The plaintiffs, who serve as special deputy sheriffs in Hartford and Fairfield counties, have attempted over the past several years to organize a labor union that would represent them in collective bargaining with the State of Connecticut. The plaintiffs encountered resistance from their supervisors, who threatened to terminate or demote them if they persisted in attempting to organize a union. The supervisors also threatened to terminate or demote the plaintiffs for refusing to pay "dues" to the County Sheriffs Association, for refusing to make "donations" to the re-election campaigns of the High Sheriffs, and for refusing to contribute to the salary of a lobbyist hired by the sheriffs to represent their interests before the state legislature. Eventually, the plaintiffs collected the required number of signatures from other special deputies and, in November 1991, they filed a petition with the Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations ("Labor Board" or "Board") for certification as a collective bargaining union. In their petition, the plaintiffs asked the Labor Board to find that the special deputy sheriffs were entitled to form a labor union.

While the plaintiffs' petition for representation was pending before the Labor Board, the Connecticut General Assembly passed Public Act 92-61. This act makes chapters 66-68 of the Connecticut General Statutes inapplicable to special deputy sheriffs, and thereby excludes special deputy sheriffs from the class of state employees who are entitled to form labor unions.1 The act was signed by defendant Weicker, the Governor of Connecticut, and became law on May 29, 1992. Four months later, on September 30, 1992, the Labor Board found that Public Act 92-61 applied to petitions that had been filed before the Act was passed; the Board therefore dismissed the plaintiffs' petition. In reaching this decision, the Board found it unnecessary to determine whether special deputy sheriffs were "employees" of the state for the purposes of SERA.

The plaintiffs commenced this action on December 22, 1992. In their amended complaint, which was filed on February 12, 1993, the plaintiffs seek the following relief: (1) a declaration that special deputy sheriffs are "employees" under SERA; (2) damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendant Albert Rioux, the Hartford County High Sheriff, and defendants Frank Lucca and William Tremont, Hartford County Special Deputy Sheriffs, based on various threats allegedly made against plaintiff Lajoie; (3) damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendant Edwin Mak, Fairfield County High Sheriff, and defendant Roger Delsin, Fairfield County Special Deputy Sheriff, based on various threats allegedly made against plaintiff Mattor; (4) a declaration that Public Act 92-61 violates the Connecticut Constitution and the United States Constitution; (5) a writ of mandamus directing the Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations and its officers to re-commence their consideration of the plaintiffs' union-organizing petition;2 (6) a declaration that Public Act 92-61 does not apply retroactively; (7) damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) against various defendants for allegedly conspiring to deprive the plaintiffs of their civil rights, based on the defendants' efforts to enact Public Law 92-61; (8) damages against defendant Lowell Weicker, the Governor of Connecticut, under 42 U.S.C. § 1986 for allegedly failing to prevent a conspiratorial wrong — namely, the enactment of Public Act 92-61; and (9) damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged injuries to the plaintiffs' constitutional and other legal rights as well as an injunction against the enforcement of Public Act 92-61, based on the claim that the statute's continuing application would further violate the plaintiffs' civil rights.

DISCUSSION

The claims asserted in the plaintiff's complaint fall into three broad categories: (1) challenges to the validity and applicability of Public Act 92-61; (2) claims for damages arising out of the alleged involvement by certain defendants in the enactment of Public Act 92-61; and (3) claims for damages arising out of alleged threats by certain defendants against the plaintiffs for failing to contribute to particular political causes and for attempting to organize a union. These claims, and the defendants' motions to dismiss each of them, will be discussed in turn.

I.

At the core of this action is the plaintiffs' effort to achieve legal recognition for a labor union that would represent special deputy sheriffs in collective bargaining with the State of Connecticut. The main obstacle to the plaintiffs' union-organizing efforts is Public Act 92-61, which provides that the Connecticut statutes authorizing employees to form labor unions do not apply to special deputy sheriffs.3 In their amended complaint, the plaintiffs seek to overcome this obstacle in four ways: (1) Count One seeks a declaration that special deputy sheriffs are in fact "employees" — rather than "independent contractors" or "vendors" — under SERA; (2) Count Four seeks a declaration that Public Act 92-61 violates both the United States Constitution and the Connecticut Constitution; (3) Count Six seeks a declaration that Public Act 92-61 does not apply retroactively; and (4) Count Nine seeks, inter alia, an injunction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the enforcement of Public Act 92-61.

A.

Count One seeks a declaration from this court that special deputy sheriffs are "employees" under Connecticut law. The court, however, declines to exercise jurisdiction over this state law claim on two interrelated grounds — 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1)4 and the doctrine of Pullman abstention.5

The plaintiffs may well be correct in arguing that this state law claim satisfies the "pendent jurisdiction" test of United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966), now codified as "supplemental jurisdiction" in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).6 The plaintiffs, however, nowhere dispute the defendants' contention that this issue raises an unsettled question of state law. The plaintiffs have not brought to the court's attention — and the court is unable to find — any Connecticut state court decisions, or any Connecticut authority whatsoever, which directly addresses the question of whether special deputy sheriffs are in fact deemed "employees" for the purposes of SERA. It therefore appears that this hotly contested state law issue — which implicates vital issues of state policy — is entirely without state precedent or direction.

This court's resolution of this important, but as yet undecided, state law question would be, at best, a prediction of subsequent state law developments — "a tentative answer which may be displaced tomorrow by a state adjudication." Railroad Comm'n of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496, 500, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Warden v. Pataki
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 11 Febrero 1999
    ...Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 376-79, 71 S.Ct. 783, 95 L.Ed. 1019 (1951); see also Lajoie v. Connecticut State Bd. of Labor Relations, 837 F.Supp. 34, 40 (D.Conn.1993) (Cabranes, C.J.). The cases cited by the Warden in their complaint — Spallone v. United States, 493 U.S. 265, 110 S.Ct......
  • St. George v. Mak, Civ. No. 5:92-587 (JAC)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • 29 Diciembre 1993
    ...for example — under Connecticut law. This court recently faced a similar question in Lajoie, et al. v. Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations, et al., 837 F.Supp. 34 (D.Conn.1993). There, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), over ......

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