Matter of Evans v. Deposit Cent. Sch. Dist.
156 A.D.3d 1024
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2017Background
- Petitioners were schoolteachers who retired between July 2010 and June 2013; their prior collective bargaining agreement (CBA) expired June 2010 but remained in effect pending a new agreement.
- A new CBA was executed in October 2013 and made retroactive to July 1, 2010; it reduced the employer’s contribution to retirees’ health coverage (from 100% to 95%).
- Petitioners sued in October 2014 seeking a declaratory judgment that they were entitled to the health benefits under the prior CBA.
- Supreme Court dismissed the original complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, finding PERB had exclusive jurisdiction; this Court reversed, holding the claim sounded in breach of contract.
- Petitioners then amended to add CPLR article 78 claims, § 1983 and state due process claims, and requests for punitive damages and attorney fees; respondents moved to dismiss those additional claims.
- Supreme Court dismissed all claims except the breach of contract claim; parties cross-appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the additional claims and declined to decide the breach claim on the appellate record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PERB has exclusive jurisdiction over petitioners’ claims | Evans: The claim is a contract breach, not a PERB labor-practices or duty-to-bargain dispute | District: Labor-relations issues fall within PERB’s exclusive jurisdiction | Court previously (and implicitly here) held breach-of-contract claim is not within PERB exclusive jurisdiction; however PERB-exclusive claims (e.g., improper bargaining practices) are barred |
| Whether the amended CPLR article 78 claim may proceed | Evans: Administrative-review relief available | District: PERB has exclusive jurisdiction over such challenges | Dismissed — CPLR article 78 claim falls within PERB’s exclusive jurisdiction |
| Whether petitioners stated § 1983 claims for due process violations | Evans: Reduced contribution deprives protected property or liberty interest | District: Petitioners failed to plead municipal policy/custom causing deprivation; reduction not a constitutional deprivation | Dismissed — § 1983 claims inadequately pleaded as to policy/custom (Monell), and facts do not show a constitutional deprivation |
| Whether state constitutional due process claim (and related punitive damages/fees) is stated | Evans: State Constitution protects benefits entitled under prior CBA | District: No cognizable deprivation under state constitutional due process | Dismissed — reduction from 100% to 95% does not, on these facts, constitute a NY Constitutional due process violation; related fee/punitive damage claims also dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Evans v. Deposit Cent. Sch. Dist., 139 A.D.3d 1172 (App. Div. 2016) (prior appellate decision distinguishing breach-of-contract claims from PERB jurisdiction)
- Zuckerman v. Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 44 N.Y.2d 336 (1978) (PERB exclusivity over certain public-employer labor disputes)
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires a policy, custom, or practice causing the violation)
- Nasca v. Sgro, 101 A.D.3d 963 (App. Div. 2012) (requiring nonconclusory pleadings of policy/custom for § 1983 claims)
- People v. Evans, 94 N.Y.2d 499 (2000) (law-of-the-case doctrine referenced)
- New York Univ. v. Continental Ins. Co., 87 N.Y.2d 308 (1995) (standards for attorney fee awards and dismissal of ancillary claims)
- Syquia v. Board of Educ. of Harpursville Cent. School Dist., 80 N.Y.2d 531 (1992) (discussion of federal constitutional claims in public‑employment contexts)