Roberts v. New York, 1:12–CV–0046 MAD/CRH.
Citation | 911 F.Supp.2d 149 |
Decision Date | 03 December 2012 |
Docket Number | No. 1:12–CV–0046 MAD/CRH.,1:12–CV–0046 MAD/CRH. |
Parties | Lillian ROBERTS as Executive Director of District Council 37, AFSCME, AFL–CIO, District Council 37, AFSCME, AFL–CIO, Dennis Ifill, as President of the Rent Regulation Services Unit Employees, Local 1359, District Council 37, AFSCME, AFL–CIO, the Rent Regulation Services Unit Employees, Local 1359, Clifford Koppelman, as President of the Court, County and Department of Probation Employees Unit, Local 1070, the Court, County, and Department of Probation Employees Unit, Local 1070 and Mildred Brown, Shanomae Wiltshire, Norma Galloway, Charmaine Hardaway, Maurice Bouyea, Steven Schwartz, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The State of NEW YORK, Andrew M. Cuomo, as Governor of the State of New York, New York State Civil Service Department, Patricia A. Hite, as Acting Commissioner, New York State Civil Service Department, New York State Civil Service Commission, Caroline W. Ahl and J. Dennis Hanrahan, as Commissioners of the New York State Civil Service Commission, Robert L. Megna, as Director of the New York State Division of the Budget, and Thomas P. Dinapoli, as Comptroller of the State of New York, and New York State and Local Retirement System, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
District Council 37, Erica C. Gray–Nelson, Esq., of Counsel, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York, Charles J. Quackenbush, Esq., Asst. Attorney General,of Counsel, Albany, NY, for Defendants.
Plaintiffs commenced the within action alleging that defendants unilaterally increased the percentage of contributions that plaintiffs, retired employees, are required to pay for health insurance benefits in retirement and violated the Contracts Clause and Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, impaired plaintiffs' contractual rights under the terms of their Collective Bargaining Agreement, and violated state law. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, declaratory judgments and monetary damages. Presently before the Court is defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 10). Plaintiffs have opposed the motion.1 (Dkt. No. 14).
Council 37, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (“AFSCME”), AFL–CIO (“council”) is the collective bargaining representative for employees of the State of New York in the Rent Regulation Services Unit (“RRSU”) and members of the Court, County and Department of Probation Employees Unit (“Court Unit”). Council 37 is a combination of 55 local unions. Plaintiff Lillian Roberts is the Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer of Council 37. Plaintiff Dennis Ifill is the President of Local 1359, an active employee of the State of New York and a member of RRSU. Local 1359 represents 302 members employed with the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal who receive benefits through the New York State Health Insurance Program (“NYSHIP”). Plaintiff Ifill receives dependent health coverage benefits through NYSHIP and is a vested member of the New York State Employees' Retirement System. Plaintiff Clifford Koppelman is the President of Local 1070, the Court Unit, which represents members of the New York State Unified Court System.
Plaintiffs Mildred Brown, Shanomae Wiltshire, Norma Galloway, Charmaine Hardaway and Maurice Bouyea are former State employees covered by the RRSU collective bargaining unit who retired and receive coverage through NYSHIP. Plaintiff Steven Schwartz was a State employee covered by the Court Unit who retired and receives coverage through NYSHIP.3
During the relevant time, defendant Patricia Hite (“Hite”) was Acting Commissioner of the Civil Service Department and Acting President of the Civil Service Commission. Defendants Caroline W. Ahl (“Ahl”) and J. Dennis Hanrahan (“Hanrahan”) were members of the Civil Service Commission. Defendant Robert Megna (“Megna”) was the Director of the New York State Division of the Budget. Defendant Thomas P. DiNapoli (“DiNapoli”) was the Comptroller of the State of New York responsible for the administration of the New York State and Local Retirement System. The New York State and Local Retirement System is responsible for making monthly pension payments to eligible retired State employees less any deductions for the payment of retiree health insurance.
[n]otwithstanding any inconsistent provision of law, where and to the extent that an agreement between the state and an employee organization entered into pursuant to article fourteen of this chapter so provides, the state cost of premium or subscription charges for eligible employees covered by such agreement may be increased pursuant to the terms of such agreement.
From 1984 to 2011, there have been eight consecutive Collective Bargaining Agreements (“CBAs”) between the State and Council 37. Since 1984, Article 9 of each CBA between the RRSU and the State has contained the following language: 4
§ 9.1 Continuation The State shall continue to provide all the forms and extent of coverage as defined by the contracts in force on April 1, 2007 with the State's health insurance carriers unless specifically modified or replaced pursuant to this agreement.
§ 9.2(1) Eligibility
Effective January 1, 1992, an employee who is eligible to continue health insurance coverage upon retirement and who is entitled to sick leave credit to be used to defray any employee contribution toward the cost of the premium, may elect an alternative method of applying the basic monthly value of the sick leave credit. Employees selecting the basic sick leave credit may elect to apply up to 100 percent of the calculated basic monthly value of the credit toward defraying the required contribution to the monthly premium during their own lifetime.
The State agrees to pay 90 percent of the cost of individual coverage and 75 percent of the cost of dependent coverage toward hospital/medical/mental health and substance abuse/prescription drug components provided under the Empire Plan.
Article 8.1 of the Court Units Agreement provides as follows: 5
The State shall continue to provide health and prescription drug benefits administered by the Department of Civil Service. Employees enrolled in such plans shall receive health and prescription drug benefits to the same extent, at the same contribution level and in the same form and with the same co-payment structure that applies to the majority of represented Executive Branch employees covered by such plans.
On August 17, 2011, the legislature passed Chapter 491 of the Laws of 2011 (“Chapter 491”). Chapter 491 amended § 167(8) and replaced the word “increased” with the word “modified.” The amendment further provided that
[t]he president [of the Civil Service Commission], with the approval of the director of the budget, may extend the modified state cost of premium or subscription charges for employees or retirees not subject to an agreement referenced above and shall promulgate the necessary rules or regulations to implement this provision.
On September 21, 2011, defendant Hite requested defendant Megna's approval to increase the premium contribution rates plaintiffs-retirees pay from ten percent (10%) to twelve percent (12%) for individual coverage and from twenty-five percent (25%) to twenty-seven percent (27%) for dependent coverage. On September 22, 2011, Megna approved the extension of modified contribution rates. Defendants approved and filed emergency regulations to implement the aforesaid reduction in State contribution rates effective October 1, 2011.
On January 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed a complaint (Dkt. No. 1) and asserted causes of action for impairment of contract, violation of due process,...
To continue reading
Request your trial- N.Y. State Corr. Officers & Police Benevolent Association, Inc. v. New York
-
Bldg. & Realty Inst. of Westchester & Putnam Cntys. v. New York
... ... state." (quotation marks omitted)); Roberts v. New ... York, 911 F.Supp.2d 149, 159-60 (N.D.N.Y. 2012) ... ("Regardless of the ... ...
-
Columbian Fin. Corp. v. Stork
...in violation of federal law: retroactive declaratory relief cannot be properly characterized as prospective." Roberts v. New York , 911 F.Supp.2d 149, 163–64 (N.D.N. Y 2012) (citing in part Green v. Mansour , 474 U.S. 64, 74, 106 S.Ct. 423, 88 L.Ed.2d 371 (1985) (as "holding that a request ......
-
Brokamp v. James
...Brokamp's claims against the Board of Regents and Board of Mental Health Practitioners will be dismissed. See Roberts v. New York , 911 F. Supp. 2d 149, 159-60 (N.D.N.Y. 2012) (dismissing claims against state of New York and various state agencies for lack of subject matter jurisdiction bas......
-
Part two: case summaries by major topic.
...manner of a strip search was unreasonable. (Woodbury County Jail, Iowa) U.S. District Court BUDGET EMPLOYEE UNION Roberts v. New York, 911 F.Supp.2d 149 (N.D.N.Y.2012). Retired state employees brought an action against the state of New York, state departments, and state officials, alleging ......