Pellegrino v. Rhode Island Ethics Com'n

• Citation: 788 A.2d 1119
• Decision Date: 30 January 2002
• Docket Number: No. 2000-132-Appeal.,2000-132-Appeal.
• Parties: Francis PELLEGRINO et al. v. The RHODE ISLAND ETHICS COMMISSION et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island

788 A.2d 1119

Francis PELLEGRINO et al. v. The RHODE ISLAND ETHICS COMMISSION et al.

No. 2000-132-Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

January 30, 2002.

Present WILLIAMS, C.J., LEDERBERG, BOURCIER, FLANDERS, and GOLDBERG, JJ.

Keven A. McKenna, Providence, for plaintiff.

Rebecca Tedford Partington, Cumberland, for defendant.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

A state statute provided for certain public officials, who were formerly members of a state governmental agency, to receive a designated compensation for attending agency meetings during a specific period. Can the agency and the defendant state treasurer invoke sovereign immunity to fend off the public officials' attempt to obtain a declaratory judgment concerning their alleged right to recover the statutory compensation due to them for attending these meetings? Because the state has waived its sovereign immunity by enacting a statute providing for the compensation in question and because the public officials' alleged performance of the statutory conditions for obtaining payment created a legitimate claim of entitlement to this statutory benefit, we answer this question in the negative.

The plaintiffs, former members of defendant, Rhode Island Ethics Commission (commission),¹ contend that the Superior Court erred when it concluded that the doctrine of sovereign immunity barred them from suing the commission and the Treasurer of the State of Rhode Island (state), to obtain declaratory and other relief concerning the compensation allegedly due and owing to them for attending various commission meetings in 1991 and 1992. They appeal from a judgment dismissing their complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and (6) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. After a prebriefing conference, a single justice of this Court ordered the parties to show cause why the appeal should not be summarily decided. Because neither party has done so, we proceed to decide the appeal without further briefing or argument.

Facts and Travel

On January 1, 1991, then Governor Bruce Sundlun, in response to a banking crisis and a large state budget deficit, issued an executive order suspending the pay of all persons serving on Rhode Island state boards and administrative agencies, including the commission. Shortly thereafter, the General Assembly ratified the Governor's action by passing various acts suspending the pay of commission members. Thus, on February 15, 1991, the Legislature passed P.L. 1991, ch. 6, art. 29, suspending the pay of the commission members for the rest of 1991 and for fiscal year 1992. Thereafter, however, on June 7, 1991, the General Assembly enacted P.L. 1991, ch. 44, art. 77. This article allowed those members of commissions who performed adjudicatory functions, including plaintiffs, to receivecompensation retroactive to February 15, 1991. Thereafter, on July 14, 1992, the General Assembly passed P.L. 1992, ch. 133, art. 9, which suspended the pay of members of commissions and boards for fiscal year 1993, without retaining the previous exception for commission members who performed adjudicatory functions. The General Assembly continued to suspend the pay of commission members from fiscal year 1993 through 1998.

Under G.L. 1956 § 36-14-8(i), commission members were entitled to receive $100 per day "as compensation for attendance at meetings * * * but not to exceed the sum of six thousand dollars ($6,000) annually as compensation of each member." Section 36-14-13 clearly provides that the commission exercises adjudicative powers. The plaintiffs argue that as commission members performing adjudicatory functions, they were entitled to compensation pursuant to P.L. 1991, ch. 44, art. 77, for attending various commission meetings from February 15, 1991, to July 14, 1992, the date when the General Assembly suspended commission members' pay without including an exception for members performing adjudicatory functions. Believing they were not entitled to demand payment from the commission while they were still serving as members, plaintiffs waited until their terms expired before filing this action on September 9, 1998. They sought, among other relief, the compensation that they were denied for the period from February 15, 1991, to July 14, 1992. Their complaint against the defendant commission and the state included counts for breach of contract (count 1), declaratory judgment counts for violation of article 3, section 8, of the Rhode Island Constitution, and violation of P.L. 1991, ch. 44, art. 77 (counts 2 and 3), promissory estoppel (count 4), and quantum meruit (count 5).

Thereafter, defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and (6). Viewing the case as an action for back wages, the motion justice concluded that defendants had not waived thestate's sovereign immunity. Believing that the doctrine of sovereign immunity, therefore, barred this lawsuit, the motion justice granted the motion to dismiss and entered judgment in favor of defendants.

On appeal, plaintiffs argue that the legislation suspending their pay as "constitutional adjudicative officers" during their terms of office was unconstitutional. They assert that the doctrine of sovereign immunity cannot defeat their claims against defendants because the legislation in question "is tantamount to abolishing their positions" and "undermines a constitutional function." They also aver that defendants' failure to pay them for the services they rendered to the commission violates the just-compensation guarantees in the state and federal constitution — protecting them against the government's uncompensated takings of their private property for public use — because they possessed a vested property right to the statutory stipend for the meetings they attended during the 1991-1992 period when the General Assembly provided for them to receive such compensation and because defendants' failure to pay them took this property right from them for the public's use without just compensation.

The plaintiffs further argue that the General Assembly's enactment of § 36-14-8(i) and P.L. 1991, ch. 44, art. 77 — providing for them to receive a specific monetary stipend for attending commission meetings — necessarily waived the state's sovereign immunity for claims to recover the stipend. They contend that the express provisions of these laws demonstrate that they were entitled to be compensated for attending meetings during the period in question. In essence, they argue, the above legislation, providing for compensation to be paid to the commission members who attended the meetings in question, operated to waive the state's sovereign immunity. Finally, they suggest, the motion justice erred in failing to declare the rights of the parties.

The defendants respond that plaintiffs' claim is statutory in nature, not constitutional. They maintain that the General Assembly had the power to suspend payments to commission membersthrough later-enacted legislation. They suggest that plaintiffs may not rely on contract theory, property rights, or estoppel doctrines to limit the General Assembly's prerogative to revise legislation concerning the compensation due to commission members. In addition, they argue, plaintiffs' claims for the period from February 1991 through July 1992 are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. They contend that the state has not expressly waived its sovereign immunity from suit in actions seeking statutory benefits related to government employment. They posit that sovereign immunity must be expressly waived, and they argue that the state only has done so for actions sounding in tort and for certain claims involving public-works contracts. In addition, defendants insist, sovereign immunity specifically precludes declaratory-judgment actions against the state, citing Rhode Island Turnpike and Bridge Authority v. Nugent, 95 R.I. 19, 182 A.2d 427 (1962). Finally, defendants maintain, plaintiffs' action is time barred because, even if the state had waived its sovereign immunity, the applicable limitations period is usually three years for waived-immunity cases. Here, however, plaintiffs filed the lawsuit more than six years after the complained-of harm had occurred.

Analysis

Standard of Review

The standard for granting a motion to dismiss is a difficult one for the movant to meet. "When ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the trial justice must look no further than the complaint, assume that all allegations in the complaint are true, and resolve any doubts in a plaintiff's favor." Rhode Island Affiliate, American Civil Liberties Union, Inc. v. Bernasconi, 557 A.2d 1232, 1232 (R.I.1989). "The motion may then only be granted if it `appears beyond a reasonable doubt that a plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any conceivable set of facts. * * *.'" Estate of Sherman v. Almeida, 747 A.2d 470, 473 (R.I.2000) (quoting Bernasconi, 557 A.2d at 1232). "When this Court reviews a trialjustice's granting of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, we assume that the allegations contained in the complaint are true, and examine the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Estate of Sherman, 747 A.2d at 473.

Statutory Entitlement and Sovereign Immunity

The key legal issue in this case concerns whether the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars plaintiff's claims for monies allegedly due and owing to them pursuant to a statute that entitled them to receive compensation from the commission for their attendance at various commission meetings. We shall also assume, without deciding, that even though the commission is an independent, nonpartisan entity established by the General Assembly pursuant to art. 3, sec. 8, of the Rhode Island Constitution, it still possesses sufficient governmental attributes to invoke sovereign immunity if that doctrine were otherwise applicable to the claims at issue.

This Court has held that the "Legislature is presumed not to have relinquished any part of the state...