967 N.E.2d 626
Mass.2012Background
- October 15, 2009, Governor announced a mandatory furlough plan for all managerial employees in the executive branch for FY2010 under G. L. c. 29, § 9C.
- Division guidelines defined “manager” to include uniformed State Police officers with rank lieutenant and higher.
- Plaintiffs, lieutenants/captains, alleged under G. L. c. 150E and related statutes that they were improperly identified as “managers” and were affected by the furlough.
- Defendants moved to dismiss; a non-evidentiary hearing occurred; the trial judge dismissed the complaint.
- Plaintiffs appealed; the court concluded they lacked a valid statutory basis to challenge the furlough plan; issues included standing, scope of 150E, and wage claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek declaratory relief under 150E | Lieutenants/captains allege 150E applies to all public employees. | 150E protects only employees below lieutenant; no standing for plaintiffs. | No standing under 150E; dismissal affirmed. |
| Applicability of 150E to challenge the furlough | 150E establishes rights for all public employees; definitions apply to them. | 150E limits to specified managerial definitions and bargaining rights. | Plaintiffs do not fall within 150E’s zone of interests. |
| Standing under G. L. 231A for declaratory relief | 231A provides broad standing for constitutional/administrative issues. | 231A does not create independent standing; injury must fall within statute. | Standing not established; 231A relief unavailable. |
| Wage claims under 149, 150 and 22C | Furlough reduces wages; 149, 150 and 22C secure earned wages and salary rights. | Wages are not “earned” for future salary reductions; prospective furlough not compensating earned wages. | No entitlement to earned wages; wage claims fail. |
| Injunctive relief under Rule 65 | Rule 65 relief should be available to halt improper furlough. | No private action under 150E; Rule 65 not available without independent basis. | Rule 65 injunctive relief not available given lack of statutory basis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mass. Ass’n of Indep. Ins. Agents & Brokers, Inc. v. Commissioner of Ins., 373 Mass. 290 (1977) (standing and declaratory relief considerations)
- Indeck Me. Energy, LLC v. Commissioner of Energy Resources, 454 Mass. 511 (2009) (stands for standing analysis; statutory implication)
- Enos v. Secretary of Envtl. Affairs, 432 Mass. 132 (2000) (injury must be within statute’s zone of interests)
- Loffredo v. Center for Addictive Behaviors, 426 Mass. 541 (1998) (standing/injunctive relief limitations)
- German v. Commonwealth, 410 Mass. 445 (1991) (public salary rights; future wages not property)
- Awuah v. Coverall N. Am., Inc., 460 Mass. 484 (2011) (definition of earned wages; labor/performance)
- New England Div. of the Am. Cancer Soc’y v. Commissioner of Admin., 437 Mass. 172 (2002) (constitutional budgeting/context for authority)
- Dartmouth v. Greater New Bedford Regional Vocational Tech. High Sch. Dist., 461 Mass. 366 (2012) (standing/deference in declaratory actions)
- Curtis v. Herb Chambers 1-95, Inc., 458 Mass. 674 (2011) (de novo review of motions to dismiss)
- Warner-Lambert Co. v. Execuquest Corp., 427 Mass. 46 (1998) (pleading standards and context for dismissal)