New Britain Bd. of Educ. v. New Britain Fed'n of Teachers, Civil Action No. 3:09–cv–1240 (VLB).

• Decision Date: 17 November 2010
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 3:09–cv–1240 (VLB).
• Citation: 754 F.Supp.2d 407
• Parties: NEW BRITAIN BOARD OF EDUCATION, Plaintiff,v.NEW BRITAIN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, LOCAL 871, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut

754 F.Supp.2d 407

NEW BRITAIN BOARD OF EDUCATION, Plaintiff,

v.NEW BRITAIN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, LOCAL 871, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 3:09–cv–1240 (VLB).

United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

Nov. 17, 2010.

Mark J. Sommaruga, William Connon, Zachary David Schurin, Sullivan, Schoen, Campane & Connon, Hartford, CT, for Plaintiff.Brian A. Doyle, Eric Warren Chester, Ferguson & Doyle, P.C., Rocky Hill, CT, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AFTER TRIAL TO THE COURT

VANESSA L. BRYANT, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This case arises out of a dispute between the New Britain Board of Education (hereinafter the “Board”), and the New Britain Federation of Teachers, Local 871 (hereinafter the “Union”), regarding class size limits for special education classes contained in the parties' current collective bargaining agreement. The Board seeks the following declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief: 1) a declaration that the class size limits for special education classes contained in the parties' collective bargaining agreement are illegal, invalid, and unenforceable under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq., Connecticut state law implementing the IDEA, Conn. Gen.Stat. § 10–76a et seq. and Connecticut Agencies Regs. § 10–76d–1 et seq., Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution; 2) an injunction enjoining the enforcement of such provisions; 3) an injunction enjoining a pending grievance arbitration concerning enforcement of the provisions brought by the Union; and 4) a declaration that such provisions represent an illegal subject of bargaining for the upcoming negotiations for a successor collective bargaining agreement between the parties. A bench trial was conducted on September 1st and 2nd and November 1st, 2010. For the reasons stated below, the Court rules in favor of the Union with respect to all of the Board's claims.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), in a bench trial, “the court must find the facts specially and state its conclusions of law separately.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a)(1). The Court's findings of fact, “whether based on oral or other evidence, must not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and the reviewing court must give due regard to the trial court's opportunity to judge the witnesses' credibility.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a)(6).

III. FACTUAL FINDINGS

The Court makes the following findings of fact based upon the parties' stipulations as well as the testimony and documentary evidence offered during the bench trial. The Board is a body politic and corporate, organized and operated pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes §§ 10–220, 10–240 and 10–241. See Joint Trial Mem., Doc. # 39, at 15. Furthermore, the Board is the local educational agency responsible for providing students residing within New Britain with a free appropriate public education pursuant to the IDEA and Conn. Gen.Stat. § 10–76a et seq. Id. at 15–16. The Union is the exclusive bargaining representative of all those employees of the Board in positions requiring a teaching or special services certificate, except nurses, paraprofessionals, persons in the “administrators' unit” as defined by Connecticut law and other personnel excluded by state statute for the purpose of negotiating with respect to salary schedules, working conditions, and other conditions relative to employment. Id. at 16.

The Board and the Union are parties to a collective bargaining agreement (hereinafter the “CBA”) that was and is in effect from July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2010. Pl. Exh. 5. The CBA was extended by agreement of the parties until June 30, 2011. Pl. Exh. 6. Article V of the CBA contains provisions limiting the sizes for academic classes. Included in this provision are sections governing class size for special education students. Pl. Exh. 5 at 12–13. Specifically, Sections 5.3 and 5.4 set forth seven categories with their own specific class size limit, along with limited exceptions thereto and recommendations for the use of paraprofessionals. Id. The categories are as follows:

(1) “Category I” provides a class size limit of 7 students for the following programs: “DEP—Elementary, DEP—Severe, Pre-school Special Education.”

(2) “Category II” provides a class size limit of 10 students for the following programs: “DEP—Intermediate, Advanced, Multiple Disability/Physical Disabilities, Self-contained Behavior Class—Grades K.–5, Self-contained Academic/Behavior—Grades K–2, Self-contained Academic—Grades K–2.”

(3) “Category III” provides a class size limit of 12 students for the following programs: “Self-contained Academic/Behavior—Grades 3–8, Self-contained Academic—Grades 3–5.”

(4) “Category IV” provides a class size limit of 15 students for the following programs: “Self-contained Behavior—Grades 6–12, Self-contained Academic/Behavior—Grades 9–12, Self-contained Academic—Grades 6–12, Departmentalized Academics—Grades 9–12, IDEA/B—Grades 9–12.”

(5) “Category V” provides a class size limit of 25 students (or 115 student hours) for the following programs: “Learning Resource, Inclusion Elementary and Middle.”

(6) “Category VI” provides a class size limit of 16 students for the following programs: “Two full time Special Education Teachers, IDEA High School.”

(7) “Category VII” provides a limit of “30 Total contacts (students and teachers)” for the following programs: “High School Inclusion.”

Id.

Section 5.5 of the CBA sets forth procedures for placing any new program in the “proper category” under Section 5.3, with any disagreement between the Board and the Union to be resolved by binding arbitration. Id. at 13. The arbitrator will then have the power to decide the appropriate category for the new program. In addition, Section 5.6 provides: “When class size exceeds the maximums established hereby up to and including three (3) in categories IV or V, or by up to and including two (2) in categories I, II, III or VI, then the decision of the Board on appeal shall be final as prescribed in Section 5:7.” Id. at 14. Parenthetically, Section 5.7 sets forth a grievance procedure for resolving class size disputes between the Board and the Union, with the steps of the procedure including appeal to the building principal, superintendent, Board of Education, and under certain circumstances arbitration. Id. at 14–15. Section 5.6 further provides that “whenever class size exceeds the maximums by more than three (3) or two (2), respectively, then the decision of the Board on appeal is subject to binding arbitration.” Id. The CBA does not specify the amount of monetary penalties that may be imposed for violation of the class size limits.

The Union has filed numerous grievances pursuant to the grievance procedures provided under Article IX of the CBA, alleging that the Board has violated Article V (including Sections 5.3 and 5.4) and demanding, among other things, that the Board “[r]eturn to a class size that does not exceed the limits in the contract. And/or monetary compensation for the classes that exceed contractual limits.” Def. Exh. B. The grievances submitted by the Union for the 2009–10 school year allege that the Board violated Article V of the CBA by exceeding the class size limits set forth in Categories IV, V, and VII as described above; there are no grievances relating to the remaining four categories. Def. Exh. B. The majority of the grievances relate to Category VII. Def. Exh. B. The Union subsequently invoked arbitration under the CBA's grievance procedures as to certain of the grievances. Pl. Exh. 8.

The grievance procedures under Article IX of the CBA provide for, inter alia, binding arbitration, which shall be conducted by the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) in accordance with its rules and procedures. Pl. Exh. 5 at 24–26. Under Article IX, the arbitrator may only hear and decide grievances involving an alleged “violation of, misinterpretation of, misapplication of, or infringement upon the provisions of [the Collective Bargaining] Agreement.” Id. at 24. According to Section 9.6 of the CBA, the arbitrator “shall be bound by and must comply with all of the terms of this Agreement” and “shall have no power to add to, delete from, or modify in any way any of the provisions of this Agreement.” Id. at 25–26. The decision of the arbitrator shall be binding upon the parties during the life of the CBA. Id. at 26. The cost for the services of the arbitrator and the AAA is borne equally by the Board and the Union. Id.

The Union's President, Ronda Barker, testified that, prior to the 2007–08 school year, grievances for special education class size overages were arbitrated and the Board never objected to having an arbitrator preside over the proceedings. During the 2007–08 school year, many grievances relating to class size overages were filed. Barker participated in meetings with Board representatives, including Dr. Jon Walek, the Board's Director of Special Education, in May of 2008. During the meetings, the two sides discussed problems with scheduling for special education classes. Walek testified that he indicated during these meetings that the CBA language regarding special education class size was “problematic.” Barker testified that several Board representatives stated at the meetings that it was “too expensive” to pay class size overages. Barker further testified that the Union went through the IEP's for special education students with the Board and made suggestions regarding class scheduling. However, the dialogue ended unsuccessfully, and the Union thereafter filed for arbitration.

There were again special education class size overages for the 2008–09 school year. The Board agreed to pay for overages in regular education class sizes, but held grievances for special education class size overages...