State Emp. Bargaining Agent Coal. v. Rowland
| Decision Date | 31 May 2013 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 11–3061–cv. |
| Citation | 718 F.3d 126 |
| Parties | STATE EMP. BARGAINING AGENT COALITION, Ind. & o/b/o all of its members, Connecticut Association of Prosecutors, Congress of CT Community Colleges, SEIU, AFLCIO, Judicial Marshals, Intl. Brotherhood of Police Officers, Connecticut State University American Assoc. of University Professors, Protective Svc. Coalition, IAFF, AFLCIO, National Assn. of Govt. Emp., AFLCIO, Connecticut State Employees Association, SEIU, AFL–CIO, Connecticut Employees Union Independent, SEIU, AFLCIO, District 1199, New England Health Care Employees Union, SEIU, AFL–CIO, Council 4, Amer. Federation of State, County, Municipal Emp., AFL–CIO, Denise A. Bouffard, Ind. & o/b/o all others similarly situated, Geneva M. Hedgecock, Ind. & o/b/o all others similarly situated, Dennis P. Heffernan, Ind. & o/b/o all others similarly situated, William D. Hill, Ind. & o/b/o all others similarly situated, Marcelle Y. Pichanick, Ind. & o/b/o all others similarly situated, American Federation of School Administrators, Local 61, AFLCIO, Connecticut State Police Union, Connecticut Federation of Education & Professors Employees AFT, AFL–CIO, Plaintiffs–Appellants, University of Connecticut, American Association of University Professors, Plaintiff, v. John G. ROWLAND, I/O as Gov. of the State of Connecticut, Marc S. Ryan, I/O as Sec. of Ofc. of Policy & Management of State of Connecticut, Defendants–Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
David S. Golub (Jonathan M. Levine, on the brief), Silver Golub & Teitell LLP, Stamford, CT, for Plaintiffs–Appellants.
Daniel Joshua Klau (Bernard E. Jacques, on the brief), McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP, Hartford, CT, for Defendants–Appellees.
Before: RAGGI, LYNCH and CHIN, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs-appellants, labor organizations and state employees, brought this action in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Alfred V. Covello, Judge ), contending that defendants-appellees state officials violated their First Amendment right to freedom of association by discriminatorily laying off only union members when reducing the state's work force. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants in their official capacities based on a stipulated factual record and dismissed plaintiffs' claims; the court also dismissed plaintiffs' claims against defendants as individuals on the pleadings (defendants not having joined the stipulation in their individual capacities). We conclude that, on the stipulated facts, defendants violated plaintiffs' rights by targeting union employees for firing based on their union membership. We therefore REVERSE the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants and REMAND to the district court with instructions to GRANT summary judgment to plaintiffs on their First Amendment claim and to craft appropriate equitable relief. We also REVERSE the district court's dismissal on the pleadings of plaintiffs' claims against defendants in their individual capacities and REMAND those claims for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The following facts are drawn from the parties' Joint Rule 56 Statement, in which defendants, in their official capacities, and plaintiffs stipulated to certain undisputed material facts.1 Defendants did not stipulate to any of these facts in their individual capacities.
Plaintiff-appellant State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition (“SEBAC”) is a coalition of thirteen state public employee unions representing approximately 40,000 Connecticut state employees.2 SEBAC has been designated by Connecticut's Board of Labor Relations as the exclusive bargaining agent for its constituent unions for the purpose of negotiating and entering into a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) covering certain terms of employment, including health care and pension benefits. In 1997, SEBAC entered into a long-term CBA with Connecticut covering all of its constituent unions. The constituent unions also had separate, union-specific CBAs that covered other terms of employment. All of those CBAs were in effect in November–December 2002 and were scheduled to be in effect for a period of years thereafter.
At all times relevant to the complaint, defendant-appellee John G. Rowland was Governor of Connecticut, and defendant-appellee Marc S. Ryan was Secretary of Connecticut's Office of Policy and Management. Rowland and Ryan (“defendants”) are sued in both their official and individual capacities. Defendants had responsibility under Connecticut law for managing Connecticut's work force and negotiating CBAs with state employees.
In November 2002, defendants met with SEBAC and its constituent unions (together with the individual plaintiffs, “plaintiffs”) and sought approximately $450 million in long-term concessions under plaintiffs' CBAs. At that time, the State of Connecticut employed approximately 50,000 individuals. Approximately 37,500 (75%) of these employees were members of SEBAC constituent unions, and approximately 12,500 (25%) were not union members.3 Defendants advised plaintiffs that unless they agreed to these concessions, defendants would fire approximately 3000 unionized state employees. Although all state employees receive the same health care and pension benefits, defendants “intentionally directed their demands for health care and pension concessions (and their corresponding threats of termination if the concessions were not granted) solely to state union employees.” Joint Local Rule 56(a)1 & 2 Statement ¶ 44.
Plaintiffs did not agree to all of the proposed concessions, but instead offered alternative concessions.4 In December 2002, defendants ordered the firing of approximately 2800 unionized state employees. These firings were effectuated in 2003 (the “2003 firings”) and were limited to unionized state employees. No non-union workers were fired. While the fired employees were told that they were being laid off due to economic necessity caused by the state's fiscal year 2003 budget deficit, the firings in fact “had minimal effect” on the state's fiscal year 2003 expenses,5 and “were ordered as a means of trying to compel the plaintiff unions to agree to the concessions demanded.” Id. ¶ 67. Defendants advised plaintiffs that the 2003 firings would be rescinded if plaintiffs agreed to the proposed concessions.
Plaintiffs filed the instant action in Connecticut district court in February 2003 seeking damages against defendants in their personal capacities and injunctive relief against defendants in their official capacities. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in May 2003, alleging that the 2003 firings violated their rights under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as the Contract Clause.
Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on, inter alia, legislative immunity and Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity grounds. The district court held that: (1) sovereign immunity barred plaintiffs' claims for money damages, but not plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief; and (2) further discovery was required to determine whether legislative immunity would bar plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief. State Emps. Bargaining Agent Coal. v. Rowland, No. 03 Civ. 221, 2006 WL 141645 (D.Conn. Jan. 18, 2006). Defendants filed an interlocutory appeal.
On appeal, we largely affirmed the district court's holdings and sent the case back to the district court for discovery. State Emps. Bargaining Agent Coal. v. Rowland, 494 F.3d 71 (2d Cir.2007). Plaintiffs then moved for reconsideration of the dismissal of the claims against defendants in their individual capacities, which the district court denied as untimely. Plaintiffs were granted class certification in March 2010.
In June 2010, the parties cross-moved for summary judgment as to liability, agreeing to brief remedial questions only after the resolution of liability issues. Plaintiffs sought summary judgment on the following claims: (1) that defendants violated plaintiffs' right to free association by (a) conditioning plaintiffs' right to continued public employment on their waiver of their right to join a union, (b) retaliating against plaintiffs for engaging in union activity and asserting union rights, and (c) targeting plaintiffs for layoff based on their union membership; (2) that defendants violated the Contract Clause by (a) conditioning plaintiffs' right to continued public employment on plaintiffs' waiver of their legislatively-approved contract rights under the CBA, and (b) retaliating against plaintiffs for refusing to give up these rights by ordering layoffs of plaintiffs in an effort to compel such a waiver; and (3) that defendants violated the Equal Protection Clause by targeting plaintiffs for layoffs based on their union membership.6 Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims, arguing that the district court should reject plaintiffs' “effort to transform a labor dispute into a constitutional case.” Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J. 1 (emphasis omitted). As noted above, the parties submitted a Joint Rule 56 Statement, and stipulated that the facts therein would govern the cross-motions for summary judgment.
In June 2011 the district court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, granted defendants summary judgment, and entered judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiffs now appeal: (1) the dismissal of their claims against defendants in their individual capacities; (2) the denial of their motion for reconsideration of this dismissal; and (3) the grant of summary judgment to defendants.
We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, see Nagle v. Marron, 663 F.3d 100, 104–05 (2d Cir.2011), and will affirm only if, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, “there is no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Boardman v. Inslee, CASE NO. C17-5255 BHS
-
Black Lives Matter v. Town of Clarkstown
... ... Constitutions of the United States and the State of New York." 2 (Compl. ¶ 18.) Starting as ... "at the foundation of a free society." State Emp. Bargaining Agent Coalition v. Rowland , 718 ... ...
- Catholic Health Care Sys. v. Burwell
- Children First Found., Inc. v. Fiala