Police Benevolent Ass'n of N.Y.S., Inc. v. Cuomo
| Decision Date | 24 September 2018 |
| Docket Number | 1:11-CV-1528 (MAD/CFH) |
| Citation | 343 F.Supp.3d 39 |
| Parties | POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK STATE, INC., BY its President Manuel M. VILAR; Manuel M. Vilar, Individually; James McCartney ; Thomas D. Smith; Frank R. Delles; and Penelope Wheeler, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. Andrew M. CUOMO, individually, and in his official capacity as Governor of the State of New York; Patricia A. Hite, individually, and in her official capacity as Acting Commissioner of the New York State Department of Civil Service; Caroline W. Ahl and J. Dennis Hanrahan, individually, and in their official capacities as Commissioners of the New York State Civil Service Commission; Robert L. Megna, individually and in his official capacity as Director of the New York State Division of the Budget ; and Thomas P. DiNapoli, individually and in his official capacity as Comptroller of the State of New York, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
GLEASON, DUNN, WALSH & O'SHEA, OF COUNSEL: RICHARD C. REILLY, ESQ., BRENDAN D. SANSIVERO, ESQ., 40 Beaver Street, Albany, New York 12207, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, OF COUNSEL: HELENA LYNCH, AAG, RICHARD LOMBARDO, AAG, The Capitol, Albany, New York 12224, Attorneys for Defendants.
In a complaint dated December 28, 2011, Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and money damages, to redress Defendants' alleged deprivation of Plaintiffs' rights secured pursuant to the Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Article I, § 6 of the New York State Constitution, Article III, § 1 of the New York State Constitution, and for breach of contract, and violation of New York State Civil Service Law § 167, resulting from Defendants' unilateral action effective October 1, 2011, increasing the contribution rates that Plaintiffs, who are active and retired employees of the State of New York, pay for their health insurance in retirement. See Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 2. Plaintiffs further seek an order declaring Chapter 491 of the Laws of 2011, Civil Service Law § 167(8), unconstitutional, as applied, and enjoining Defendants' implementation thereof, to the extent that the law and any regulations adopted thereunder impermissibly impair the obligation of the contract between the State and individual Plaintiffs, and the class they represent, by increasing the contribution rates that such retirees are required to pay for health insurance benefits in retirement. See id. at ¶ 3.
Currently before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment. See Dkt. No. 71.
Plaintiff Police Benevolent Association of New York State, Inc. ("PBANYS") is the collective bargaining representative for members the state agency law enforcement services ("ALES") unit, which consists of approximately 1,200 state employees, many of whom are enrolled in and receive benefits through the New York State Health Insurance Program ("NYSHIP"). See Dkt. No. 71-2 at ¶ 1. Plaintiff Manuel M. Vilar was, at the time the Complaint was filed, an active state employee and the President of PBANYS. See id. Plaintiff James McCartney was, at the time the Complaint was filed, an active employee of the State of New York and a member of PBANYS. See id. at ¶ 2. Plaintiffs Thomas D. Smith and Frank R. Delles are retired former state employees and former PBANYS member who are receiving dependent health coverage through NYSHIP. See id. at ¶ 3. Plaintiff Penelope Wheeler is the unremarried spouse of Harry Wheeler, now deceased, who was a member of a bargaining unit now represented by PBANYS and who retired after April 1, 1979 with ten or more years of active service. See id. at ¶ 4. Ms. Wheeler receives dependent health coverage through NYSHIP. See id.
Defendant Andrew M. Cuomo is the Governor of the State of New York. See id. at ¶ 5. Defendant Patricia A. Hite was, in 2011, Acting Commissioner of the New York State Department of Civil Service. See id. at ¶ 6. Defendants Caroline W. Ahl and Dennis Hanrahan were, in 2011, the members of the Civil Service Commission. See id. at ¶ 7. Defendant Robert Megna was, in 2011, the Director of the New York State Division of Budget. See id. at ¶ 8. Defendant Thomas P. DiNapoli is the Comptroller of the State of New York. See id. at ¶ 9.
In 2011, members of the ALES Unit, depending upon their title, were subject to either the Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") between the State and PBANYS's predecessor in interest NYSCOPBA for 1999-2003 (the "NYSCOPBA 1999-2003 CBA") or the CBA between the State and PBANYS's predecessor in interest Security Services Unit, Council 82 (the "Council 82 1999-2003 CBA").See Dkt. No. 71-2 at ¶ 10. As of the filing of the Complaint, on December 28, 2011, both the NYSCOPBA 1999-2003 CBA and the Council 82 1999-2003 CBAs remained in effect. See id. at ¶ 11.
Section 12.1 of both the NYSCOPBA 1999-2003 CBA and the Council 82 1999-2003 CBA provided that "[t]he State shall continue to provide all the forms and extent of coverage as defined by the contracts in force on March 31, 1999 with the State health and dental insurance carriers unless specifically modified or replaced pursuant to this Agreement." Id. at ¶ 12. The NYSCOPBA 1999-2003 CBA and the Council 82 1999-2003 CBA also provided that "[t]he State agrees to pay 90 percent of the cost of individual coverage and 75 percent of the cost of dependent coverage, provided under the Empire Plan." Id. at ¶ 15. Additionally, the NYSCOPBA 1999-2003 CBA and the Council 82 1999-2003 CBA provided as follows: "The unremarried spouse of an employee, who retires after April 1, 1979, with ten or more years of active State service and subsequently dies, shall be permitted to continue coverage in the health insurance program with payment at the same contribution rates as required of active employees." Id. at ¶ 17.
The various collective bargaining agreements between the State and PBANYS's predecessor in interest contained substantially the same provisions as discussed above. See Dkt. No. 71-2 at ¶¶ 18-29. The 1982-85 CBA, however, provided that the State would pay 100% of individual coverage and 75% of dependent coverage. See id. at ¶ 28.
The Court will not repeat all of the facts relating to the 1983 and 2011 Legislation, the fiscal crisis facing the State in 2010 and 2011, or the parties' arguments relating to Defendant Hite acting as the head of the Department of Civil Service. Rather, the Court refers the parties to the discussion set forth in the accompanying Memorandum-Decision and Order from the Lead Case.
In their first cause of action, Plaintiffs allege that the increase in the percentage of the health insurance premium contribution paid by retirees violated the Contracts Clause of Article I, § 10 of the United States Constitution. See Dkt. No. 57 at ¶¶ 111-24. Defendants contend that the Court should dismiss this cause of action because the collective bargaining agreements do not establish a contractual right to a perpetually fixed health insurance premium contribution rates. See Dkt. No. 96-1 at 13-17. Further, Defendants argue that, even if Plaintiffs do have a vested right to a perpetually fixed premium contribution rate, they failed to demonstrate a substantial impairment of that right. See id. at 17-20. Moreover, Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment on this claim because the law at issue served a legitimate public purpose and the means chosen to accomplish that purpose were reasonable and necessary. See id. at 20-24.
The second cause of action alleges that L. 2011 Ch. 491, as applied to Plaintiffs, violates the Contracts Clause and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. See Dkt. No. 1 at ¶¶ 125-28. Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment as to this claim because it is duplicative of the first and fourth causes of action. See Dkt. No. 71-1 at 24-25.
In their third cause of action, Plaintiffs allege that the increase in the percentage of the health insurance premium contribution paid by retirees breached Plaintiffs' contractual rights under the relevant CBAs. See Dkt. No. 1 at ¶¶ 129-132. Defendants contend that the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim since there is no viable federal claim and that this claim should otherwise be dismissed because it lacks merit. See Dkt. No. 71-1 at 25-27.
Plaintiffs' fourth cause of action alleges that Defendants' actions violated their rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Dkt. No. 1 at ¶¶ 133-40. Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiffs do not have a constitutionally protected property right in perpetually fixed premium contribution rates. See Dkt. No. 71-1 at 27-31. Additionally, Defendants contend that, even if Plaintiffs had a property interest, the claim still fails because they had an adequate state-court remedy of which they failed to avail themselves. See id. at 31-33.
In their fifth and sixth causes of action, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants' extension of the premium contribution increase to retirees was ultra vires because it was not authorized by Civil Service Law § 167(8). See Dkt. No. 1 at ¶¶ 141-57. Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment as to these claims because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Dkt. No. 71-1 at 34-35. Alternatively, even assuming the Court considers the merits of the claims, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial