I. INTRODUCTION
In а complaint dated January 10, 2012, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants unilaterally
Currently before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
II. BACKGROUND
A. The Parties
Plaintiff Lillian Roberts was at the relevant times the Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer of Plaintiff District Council 37, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO ("DC 37"). See Dkt. No. 87 at ¶ 1. Plaintiff DC 37 is a not-for-profit corporation and is an employee organization that is the collective bargaining representative for the Rent Regulation Services Unit ("RRSU") and Court Unit employees (the "Court Unit"), who receive benefits through the New York State Health Insurance Program ("NYSHIP"). See id. at ¶ 2. Plaintiff Dennis Ifill was, at the time the complaint was filed, the President of Local 1359 and an active New York State employee. See id. at ¶ 3. Plaintiff Clifford Koppelman was, at the time of the filing of the complaint, the President of Local 1070, the Court, County and Department of Probation Employees Unit. See id. at ¶ 4. Plaintiffs Mildred Brown and Maurice Bouyea were, at the time the complaint was filed, retired former New York State Employees and members of the RRSU unit receiving dependent health insurance benefits through NYSHIP. See id. at ¶ 5. Plaintiffs Shanomae Wiltshire, Norma Galloway, and Charmaine Hardaway were, at the time the complaint was filed, retired former New York State employees and members of the RRSU unit receiving individual health insurance benefits through NYSHIP. See id. at ¶ 6. Plaintiff Steven Schwartz was, at the time the complaint was filed, a retired former New York State employee and member of the Court Unit receiving individual health insurance benefits through NYSHIP. See id. at ¶ 7.
Defendant Andrew M. Cuomo is the Governor of the State of New York. See id. at ¶ 9. Defendant Patricia A. Hite was, in 2011, Acting Commissioner of the New York State Department of Civil Service. See id. at ¶ 10.
B. Colleсtive Bargaining Agreement in Effect in 2011 Between New York and RRSU
During 2011, the State of New York and the RRSU were parties to a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") for the period April 2, 2007, through April 1, 2011 (the "2007-11 RRSU CBA").See
C. CBAs in Effect 1982-2011 Between New York and RRSU
From 1982 to 2011, the various collective bargaining agreements between the State and RRSU contained substantially the same provisions as discussed above. See Dkt. No. 83-2 at ¶¶ 20-36.
D. CBAs Between the State and the Court Unit
During 2011, the State of New York and the Court Unit were parties to a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") for the period April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2011 (the "2007-11 Court Unit CBA"). See Dkt. No. 83-2 at ¶ 37. Section 8.1 of the 2007-11 Court Unit CBA provided: "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." Id. at ¶ 38. All of the Court Unit CBAs from 1982 through 2011 contained this language. See id. at ¶ 39.
E. CBAs Between the State and CSEA and the State and PEF in 2011
On June 22, 2011, the Governor issued a press release announcing that the State had reached a five-year labor agreement with the Civil Service Employees Association ("CSEA"). See Dkt. No. 83-2 at ¶ 40. The press release announced a two percent increase in the premium contribution rate for Grade 9 employees and below, and a six percent increase for Grade 10 and above. See id.
The 2011-16 CBA between CSEA and the State was signed on August 15, 2011, and covered the periods between April 2, 2011 and April 1, 2016. See id. at ¶ 41. Section 9.14 of the 2011-16 CSEA CBA provides as follows:
The State agrees to pay 90 percent of the cost of individual coverage and 75 percent of the cost of dependent coverage toward the hospital/medical/mental health and substance abuse components provided under the Empire Plan. Effective October1, 2011 for employees in a title Salary Grade 9 or below, the State agrees to pay 88 percent of the cost of individual coverage and 73 percent of the cost of dependent coverage toward the hospital/medical/mental health and substance abuse components provided under the Empire Plan. Effective October 1, 2011 for employees in a title Salary Grade 10 and above or an employee equated to a position title Salary Grade 10 and above the State agrees to pay 84 percent of the cost of individual coverage and 69 percent of the cost of dependent coverage toward the hospital/medical/mental health and substance abuse components provided under the Empire Plan.
Id.
Article 50 of the 2011-16 CSEA CBA, entitled "Conclusion of Collective Negotiations," provided:
This Agreement is the entire agreement between the State and CSEA, terminates all prior agreements and understandings and concludes all collective negotiations during its term. During the term of this Agreement, neither party will unilaterally seek to modify its terms through legislation or other means. The parties agree to support jointly any legislation or administrative action necessary to implement the provisions of this Agreement. The parties acknowledge that, except as otherwise expressly provided herein, they have fully negotiated with respect to the terms and conditions of employment and have settled them for the term of this Agreement in accordance with the provisions thereof.
Id. at ¶ 42.
On November 3, 2011, PEF announced that its members ratified a four-year agreement with the State. See id. at ¶ 43. The term of that agreement was April 2, 2011 through April 1, 2015. See id.
Section 9.2(h) of the 2011-15 PEF CBA states as follows:
The State agrees to pay 90 percent of the cost of the individual coverage and 75 percent of the cost of dependent coverage, including prescription drug coverage, provided under the Empire Plan. Effective October 1, 2011 for employees in a title Salary Grade 9 or below (or an employee equated to a position title Salary Grade 9 or below), the State agrees to pay 88 percent of the cost of individual coverage and 73 percent of the cost of dependent coverage. Effective October 1, 2011 for employees in a title Salary Grade 10 and above (or an employee equated to a position title Salary Grade 10 and above) the State agrees to pay 84 percent of the cost of individual coverage and 69 percent of the cost of dependent coverage.
Id. at ¶ 44.
The members of the CSEA and PEF constitute the majority of represented executive branch employees. See id. at ¶ 45.
F. Legislation, Administrative Measures, and Fiscal Crisis
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.
G. The Complaint and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment
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. Defendants contend that the Court should dismiss this cause of action because the collective bargaining agreements do not establish a contractual right to perpetually fixed health insurance premium contribution rates. Further, Defendants argue that, even if Plaintiffs do
The second cause of action alleges that the increase in the percentage of the health insurance premium contribution paid by retirees breached Plaintiffs' contractual rights under the 2007-11 CBAs. 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.
The third cause of action alleges that the retirees' premium contribution increase violated Plaintiffs' right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 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. 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.
The fourth cause of action alleges that Defendants' increase in retiree health insurance contribution rates was "arbitrary and capricious, was contrary to law, including but not limited to the provisions of Civil Service Law § 167(1)(a) and the amended Civil Service Law § 167(8), and was an abuse of discretion." Defendants contend that this cause of action appears to be a claim brought pursuant to Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, which was previously dismissed. See Dkt. No. 83-1 at 9 (citing Dkt. No. 19 at 18-21).
The fifth cause of action alleges a due process violation under Article I, § 6 of the New York State Constitution. Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment as to this claim because the State constitution does not provide for such a cause of action when relief is available under
The sixth cause of action alleges that Defendants Hite and Megna violated Article III, § 1 of the State Constitution by attempting to serve in a legislative role. Defendants argue that the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim which, in any event, has no merit because Defendants Hite and Megna acted in accordance with the express terms of Civil Service Law § 167(8).
III. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of review
A court may grant a motion for summary judgment only if it determines that there is no genuine issue of material fact to be tried and that the facts as to which there is no such issue warrant judgment for the movant as a matter of law. See Chambers v. TRM Copy Ctrs. Corp. ,
In assessing the record to determine whether any such issues of material fact exist, the court is required to resolve all
B. Plaintiffs' Claims
The Court will not restate here all of the relevant law or reasons why Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted as to Plaintiffs' ten named causes of action. Rather, the Court directs the parties to the discussion in the Lead Case, which addresses each of the raised arguments. See Donohue v. Cuomo , No. 1:11-cv-1530, Dkt. No. 102. The Court will only briefly address arguments raised by Plaintiffs that are distinct from those addressed in the Lead Case.
Initially, Plaintiffs argue that the Court should exclude the declarations of Dominic Colafati and Darryl Decker due to Defendants' failure to disclose them as witnesses. See Dkt. No. 87-1 at 23-29. As discussed in detail in the Lead Case, Defendants' failure to disclose these witnesses did not result in any prejudice and Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the Court should grant such extraordinary relief.
As discussed in detail in the Lead Case, ordinary principles of contract interpretation require the Court to conclude that none of the CBAs at issue guaranteed a perpetually fixed premium contribution rate into retirement. See M & G Polymers USA, LLC v. Hobert Freel Tackett , --- U.S. ----,
Plaintiffs' breach of contract cause of action must also be dismissed. Plaintiffs
As to Plaintiffs' due process claims, the undisputed facts demonstrate that neither the CBAs nor Civil Service Law § 167 created a property interest in fixed premium contribution rates in retirement. See Costello v. Town of Fairfield ,
Even assuming that Plaintiffs' ultra vires causes of action were not previously dismissed by the Court and are not claims brought pursuant to Article 78 over which the Court would not have subject matter jurisdiction, the claims are still subject to dismissal. As set forth more fully in the Lead Case and Spence v. Cuomo , No. 1:11-cv-1533, Dkt. No. 109 at 23-24 (N.D.N.Y.), Defendants Hite and Megna acted in accordance within their authority as provided by Civil Service Law § 167(8).
Finally, as to Plaintiffs' claim that Defendants Hite and Megna violated Article III, § 1 of the New York State Constitution, their arguments are without merit. As discussed in the Lead Case, Defendants Hite and Megna were authorized, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 167(8), to apply the premium shift to retirees, "[n]otwithstanding any inconsistent provision of law." Donohue v. Cuomo , No. 1:11-cv-1530, Dkt. No. 102 at 41-45. Defendants Hite and Megna acted consistent with this authority, granted them by the Legislature, "to fill in the interstices in the legislative product by prescribing rules and regulations consistent with the enabling legislation." Med. Soc'y v. Serio ,
Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
IV. CONCLUSION
After carefully reviewing the entire record in this matter, the parties' submissions and the applicable law, and for the above-stated reasons, the Court hereby
ORDERS Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 83) is GRANTED ; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in Defendants' favor and close this case; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall attach a copy of the decision in the Lead Case (Donohue v. Cuomo , No. 1:11-cv-1530, Dkt. No. 102) to this Memorandum-Decision and Order; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Attachment
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
vs.
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, THOMAS P. DiNAPOLI as Comptroller of the State of New York, NEW YORK STATE AND LOCAL RETIREMENT SYSTEM; JONATHAN LIPPMAN as Chief Judge of the New York State Unified Court System, and the NEW YORK STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM, Defendants.
1:11-CV-1530 (MAD/CFH)
APPEARANCES:
CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC.
143 Washington Avenue
P.O. Box 7125, Capitol Station
Albany, New York 12224
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
OF COUNSEL:
DAREN J. RYLEWICZ, ESQ.
ERIC E. WILKE, ESQ.
JENNIFER C. ZEGARELLI, ESQ.
OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224
Attorneys for Defendants
HELENA LYNCH, AAG
RICHARD LOMBARDO, AAG
Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
In their second amended complaint dated July 29, 2014, Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to
Currently before the Court are the parties' cross motions for summary judgment.
II. BACKGROUND
A. The Parties
Plaintiff Danny Donohue is the statewide president of the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc. ("CSEA"). See Dkt. No. 98 at ¶ 1. Plaintiff CSEA is the collective negotiating representative for New York State employees in the Administrative Service Unit ("ASU"), Institutional Services Unit ("ISU"), Operational Services Unit ("OSU"), and Division of Military and Naval Affairs Unit ("DMNA"), as well as one unit of employees of the New York State Unified Court System. See
Defendant Andrew Cuomo is Governor of the State of New York. See
B. Collective Bargaining Agreement Negotiated Between the State and CSEA in 2011
On June 22, 2011, the Governor issued a press release announcing that the State had reached a five-year labor agreement (the "2011-16 CBA") with the CSEA. See Dkt. No. 98 at ¶ 14. The press release announced a two percent increase in the premium contribution rate for Grade 9 employees
The 2011-16 CBA between CSEA and the State was signed on August 15, 2011, and covered the periods between April 2, 2011 and April 1, 2016. See
The State agrees to pay 90 percent of the cost of individual coverage and 75 percent of the cost of dependent coverage toward the hospital/medical/mental health and substance abuse components provided under the Empire Plan. Effective October 1, 2011 for employees in a title Salary Grade 9 or below, the State agrees to pay 88 percent of the cost of individual coverage and 73 percent of the cost of dependent coverage toward the hospital/medical/mental health and substance abuse components provided under the Empire Plan. Effective October 1, 2011 for employees in a title Salary Grade 10 and above or an employee equated to a position title Salary Grade 10 and above the State agrees to pay 84 percent of the cost of individual coverage and 69 percent of the cost of dependent coverage toward the hospital/medical/mental health and substance abuse components provided under the Empire Plan.
Section 9.26 of the 2011-16 CBA provides that "[t]he unremarried spouse and otherwise eligible dependent children 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 for the same coverage."
[t]his Agreement is the entire agreement between the State and CSEA, terminates all prior agreements and understandings and concludes all collective negotiations during its term. During the term of this Agreement, neither party will unilaterally seek to modify its terms through legislation or other means. The parties agree to support jointly any legislation or administrative action necessary to implement the provisions of this Agreement. The parties acknowledge that, except as otherwise expressly provided herein, they have fully negotiatedwith respect to the terms and conditions of employment and have settled them for the term of this Agreement in accordance with the provisions thereof.
C. 2011 Legislation to Implement Contribution Rate Changes for Health Insurance Premiums
Prior to 2011, section 167(8) of the Civil Service Law provided, in relevant part, that the "state cost of premium or subscription charges for eligible employees" covered by a CBA "may be increased to the terms of such agreement." Dkt. No. 98 at ¶ 22 (citing Senate Bill 5846, Assembly Bill 8513). On August 17, 2011, section 167(8) was amended to read as follows:
Notwithstanding 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 modified pursuant to the terms of such agreement. The president, with the approval of the director of the budget, may extend the modifiеd 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.
D. Collective Bargaining Agreements Between the State and CSEA from 1982 to 2011
Section 9.1(a) of the CBA in effect from 2007 to 2011 (the "2007-11 CBA") stated 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, 2007, with the State's health insurance carriers unless specifically modified by this Agreement." Dkt. No. 98 at ¶ 25. As with the 2007-11 CBA, the 2003-07 CBA, 1999-03 CBA, 1995-99 CBA, 1991-95 CBA, 1988-91 CBA, 1985-88 CBA, and 1982-85 CBA all contained this language regarding the forms and extent of coverage. See
The 2007-11 CBA, 2003-07 CBA, 1999-03 CBA, 1995-99 CBA, 1991-95 CBA, 1988-91 CBA, and 1985-88 CBA all provided that the State paid 90 percent of the cost of the premium for individual coverage and 75 percent of the cost of the premium for dependent coverage for the Empire Plan and HMOs. See Dkt. No. 98 at ¶ 42. The 1982-85 CBA provided that the State paid 100% of employee premiums and 75 % of the cost of dependent coverage. See
E. Administrative Measures in 2011 Regarding Contribution Rates for Employee Health Insurance Premiums
By letter dated September 21, 2011, Defendant Hite notified Defendant Megna that she was extending, as authorized by Civil Service Law § 167(8), and subject to his approval, the modified State premium contribution rates set forth in Article 9 of the 2011-16 CSEA CBA, to unrepresented employees and retirees. See Dkt. No. 98 at ¶ 45.
On September 27, 2011, Defendant Hite adopted a Resolution, citing to the authority vested in her in Civil Service Law sections 160(1), 161-a, and 167(8), which amended section 73.3(b) of Title 4 of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations. See Dkt. No. 93-2 at ¶ 47 (citing Dkt. No. 93-21); see also Dkt. No. 98 at ¶ 47. The Resolution contained the following provisions applicable to retirees:
(i) for retirees who retired on or after January 1, 1983, and employees retiring prior to January 1, 2012, New York State shall contribute 88 percent of the charge on account of individual coverage and 73 percent of the charge on account of dependent coverage, provided, however, that for hospital/medical/mental health and substance abuse coverage provided under a Health Maintenance Organization, the State's rate of contribution shall not exceed 100 percent of its dollar contribution for such coverage under the Empire Plan;
(ii) for employees retiring on or after January 1, 2012, from a title allocated or equated to salary grade 9 or below, New York State shall contribute 88 percent of the charge on account of individual coverage and 73 percent of the charge on account of dependent coverage, provided, however, that for hospital/medical/mental health and substance abuse coverage provided under a Health Maintenance Organization, the State's rate of contribution shall not exceed 100 percent of its dollar contribution for such coverage under the Empire Plan;
(iii) for employees retiring on or after January 1, 2012, from a title allocated or equated to salary grade 10 or above,New York State shall contribute 84 percent of the charge on account of individual coverage and 69 percent of the charge on account of dependent coverage, provided, however, that for hospital/medical/mental health and substance abuse coverage provided under a Health Maintenance Organization, the State's rate of contribution shall not exceed 100 percent of its dollar contribution for such coverage under the Empire Plan.
Dkt. No. 98 at ¶ 48; see also Dkt. No. 93-21 at 2-3 (emphasis omitted). The foregoing provisions were made effective October 1, 2011. See
In 1983, Civil Service Law § 167(8) was modified to provide that the full cost of health insurance premiums would be paid by the State for those who retired prior to January 1, 1983. See Dkt. No. 98 at ¶ 51; see also Dkt. No. 93-23. The 1983 law further provided that nine-tenths of the premium charge for health insurance would be paid by the State for current employees and those who retire on or after January 1, 1983. See
G. Fiscal Crisis Facing the State in 2010-2011
As a result of the Great Recession that began in December 2007 according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the State faced General Fund budget gaps for Fiscal Year 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011-2012 in the amounts of $17.9 billion (2 percent of estimated spending), $9.2 billion (15 percent of estimated spending), and $10 billion (15 percent of estimated spending), respectively. See Dkt. No. 98 at ¶ 54. A General Fund budget gap means the difference between planning spending commitments and the receipts available to pay them. See
In Fiscal Years 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12, the State was required to adopt a range of measures to close the large budget gaps and achieve a balanced budget. See
The development of the annual budget follows a methodical process. See
The gap-closing plan that was proposed in the 2011-12 Executive Budget was approved by the Legislature with relatively few modifications. See
In balancing the budget for a given year, the State weighs the impact of gap-closing actions on its long-term operating position. See Dkt. No. 98 at ¶ 71. DOB typically develops the Financial Plan with a goal of achieving a reasonably close relationship between receipts and disbursements over multi-year period. See
The State's credit rating depends in part on its ability to maintain budget balance in
As part of the response to the Great Recession, all State agencies were asked by the Governor's Office to advance рroposals designed to achieve workforce savings. See
H. Defendant Hite Acting as Head of the Department of Civil Service
By the document entitled "Designation of Deputy," dated December 22, 2010, Nancy Groenwegen, then the Commissioner and head of the New York State Department of Civil Service, designated certain persons as deputies, who would act in her absence as the head of the New York State Department of Civil Service. See Dkt. No. 98 at ¶ 81. Defendant Hite was the first deputy so designated by Nancy Groenwegen. See
According to Defendants, upon Ms. Groenwegen's resignation, Defendant Hite became the Acting Commissioner of the Department of Civil Service. See Dkt. No. 93-2 at ¶ 85. Plaintiffs, however, contend that "Defendant Hite was designated as a Deputy so long as she held the position of Director Division of Classification and Compensation.... Further, Defendant Hite was never appointed as Acting Commissioner by Governor Cuomo and never filed a Public Officer Oath/Affirmation in the position of Acting Commissioner." Dkt. No. 98 at ¶ 85 (citing Hite Depo. pp. 21-22; Lynch Decl., Exh. 16).
By letter dated September 21, 2011, Defendant Hite notified Defendant Megna
I. The Complaint and Pending Motions for Summary Judgment
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. 55 at ¶¶ 79-95. 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. 93-1 at 11-16. 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
In their second 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 2007-11 CBA. See Dkt. No. 55 at ¶¶ 96-105. 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. 93-1 at 23-25.
The third and fifth causes of action allege that the retirees' premium contribution increase violated Plaintiffs' right to due process under the Federal and State Constitutions. See Dkt. No. 55 at ¶¶ 106-15, 132-40. Defendants argue that these claims fail because Plaintiffs do not have a property interest in a perpetually fixed premium contribution rate and the New York State Constitution does not provide for the cause of action Plaintiffs assert. See Dkt. No. 93-1 at 26-29, 32-34. Additionally, Defendants contend that, even if Plaintiffs had a property interest, the claim still fails
The fourth cause of action alleges that Defendant Hite lacked the authority to administratively extend the premium shift. See Dkt. No. 55 at ¶¶ 116-31. Defendants claim that this cause of action "appears to have been brought pursuant to Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules and has been dismissed." Dkt. No. 93-1 at 9 (citing Dkt. No. 19 at 19-22).
In their sixth cause of action, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Hite and Megna violated Article III, § 1 of the New York State Constitution. See Dkt. No. 55 at ¶¶ 141-45. Defendants argue that the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim which, in any event, has no merit because Defendants Hite and Megna acted in accordance with the express terms of Civil Service Law § 167(8). See Dkt. No. 93-1 at 34-35.
Finally, the eighth cause of action alleges that the retirees' premium contribution increase violated Plaintiffs' contract rights established by statute and longstanding practice. See Dkt. No. 55 at ¶¶ 150-55. Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment as to this claim because (1) it is well established that Civil Service Law § 167(1) did not bestow any contractual rights on Plaintiffs; (2) the claimed past practice did not exist; and (3) a past practice is merely a form of parol evidence and does not independently establish a contractual right. See Dkt. No. 931 at 37-39.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of review
A court may grant a motion for summary judgment only if it determines that there is no genuine issue of material fact to be tried and that thе facts as to which there is no such issue warrant judgment for the movant as a matter of law. See Chambers v. TRM Copy Ctrs. Corp. ,
In assessing the record to determine whether any such issues of material fact exist, the court is required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. See Chambers ,
B. First Cause of Action: Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution
1. Legal Framework
"The Contracts Clause restricts the power of States to disrupt contractual arrangements. It provides that '[n]o state shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.' " Sveen v. Melin , --- U.S. ----,
"At the same time, not all laws affecting pre-existing contracts violate the
2. Contractual Relationship
In thеir motion, Defendants contend that no contractual relationship exists as to the allegedly impaired term because there is no contractual term promising the perpetual continuation of premium contribution rates at a specific level. See Dkt. No. 93-1 at 12-16. Plaintiffs, however, argue that they are entitled to summary judgment as to this claim because there is no dispute that the collective bargaining agreements at issue entitled retirees to health insurance "with the State paying 90% of the cost of individual coverage and 75% of the cost of dependent coverage upon the completion of 10 years of State service." See Dkt. No. 97-33 at 16. Plaintiffs rely primarily on two provisions of the CBAs at issue. See id. at 16-18. The first provision provides that "[e]mployees covered by the State Health Insurance Plan have the right to retain health insurance after retirement upon completion of ten years of service." Id. The second provision provides that "[t]he State agrees to pay 90 percent of the cost of individual coverage and 75 percent of the cost of dependent coverage toward the hospital/medical/mental health and substance abuse components provided under the Empire Plan."Id. at 16. Plaintiffs assert that this language has been contained in both clause within Section 9 of the CBAs from the 1982-85 CBA through the 2007-11 CBA. See id.
Generally, "contractual obligations will cease, in the ordinary course,
The Supreme Court disagreed. Writing for the majority, Justice Thomas stated that contractual provisions in CBAs are to be enforced as written and interpreted in accordance with "ordinary principles of contract law, at least when those principles are not inconsistent with federal labor policy." Id. at 933. As with any contract, "the parties' intentions control." Id. (citing Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp. ,
When faced with ambiguous language, the Supreme Court advised that courts "should not construe ambiguous writings to create lifetime promises." Id. at 936 (citing 3 A. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts § 533, p. 216 (1960) ). Rather, courts should be guided by the "traditional principle that 'contractual obligations will cease, in the ordinary course, upon termination of
In her concurring opinion, Justice Ginsburg expounded upon Justice Thomas' adherence to fundamental principles of contract law, stating that when the parties' intent is unambiguously expressed in the contract, that intent controls, and the court's analysis should go no further. See id. at 938 (Ginsburg, J., concurring) (citing 11 R. Lord, Williston on Contracts § 30:2, p. 98-104) (4th ed. 2012) (Williston) ). When faced with ambiguity, however, courts may consider extrinsic evidence to determine the parties' intentions. See id. (citing 11 Williston § 30:7, at 116-24 ). Justice Ginsburg further observed that there is no rule requiring "clear and express" language in order to demonstrate that the parties intended
"Although a contract's general-durational clause does not say everything about the parties' intent to vest a benefit, Tackett v. M & G Polymers USA, LLC ,
With these principles in mind, in the present matter, the Court finds that the unambiguous terms of the CBAs at issue did not create a vested interest in the perpetual continuation of premium contribution rates at a specific level. Plaintiffs rely on Article 9 of CSEA's 2007-11 CBA, and substantially similar provisions of prior CBAs going back to 1983, to support their argument that they have a vested right to a perpetually fixed premium contribution rate for their health insurance
Section 9.1 of the 2007-11 CBA between CSEA and the State provides that "[t]he State shall continue to provide all the forms and extent of coverage as defined by the contracts and in force on March 31, 2007 with the State's health insurance carriers unless specifically modified by this Agreement." Dkt. No. 93-12 at 4. This language clearly indicates that the State is promising the continuation of coverage. The introductory language simply establishes that the coverage in the previous CBA, to the extent that it is defined in the contracts between the State and the insurance carriers, will continue unless altered through negotiations. Therefore, what is continued are the benefits defined in the contracts with the insurance carriers.
Additionally, to the extent that "continue" is read to mean continuation after the expiration of the CBA, the term "coverage" can only naturally be referring to the coverage that is defined in the "contracts" with "the State health and dental insurance carriers." The State promised to continue to provide "coverage," not as defined
Also, to the extent that Plaintiffs claim that the word "contracts" in Section 9.1 refers to the CBA that was in effect on March 31, 2007, the argument must fail. First, as Defendants correctly note, Section 9.1 plainly refers to "contracts," not a single contract. Second, the 2007-11 CBA and its predecessors refer to themselves as the "Agreement," not the "contract." Dkt. No. 93-2 at ¶¶ 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39. There is no plausible reason why Section 9.1 of the 2007-11 CBA would diverge from the language that had been used for decades and refer to a prior CBA as the "the contracts" rather than the "Agreement."
Defendants also correctly note that the sections of the 2007-11 CBAs that set forth the specific premium contribution rates further support the interpretation that the CBAs do not guarantee a perpetual specific premium contribution rate. Specifically, Section 9.23(a) provides that "[t]he unremarried spouse and otherwise eligible dependent children 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 for the same coverage." Dkt. No. 93-12 at 21. This provision demonstrates that, when a specific contribution rate is meant to be guaranteed into retirement, it is set forth expressly in the contract.
Plaintiffs argue that two provisions read together support their position. Section 9.27(a) provides that "[e]mployees covered by the State Health Insurance Plan have the right to retain health insurance after retirement upon completion of ten years of service." Dkt. No. 97-33 at 16. Further, Section 9.14(a) provides that "[t]he State agrees to pay 90 percent of the cost of individual coverage and 75 percent of the
Contrary to Plaintiffs assertions, these provisions do not provide for a vested right to a perpetually fixed premium contribution rate and Mr. Hanna's declaration does not alter this conclusion. Section 9.27(a) simply provides that employees have the right to retain health insurance in retirement upon completion of ten years of service,
Additionally, all of the CBAs at issue have durational limits. For example, Article 53 of the 2011-16 CBA provides that "[t]he term of this Agreement shall be from April 2, 2011 to April 1, 2016." Dkt. No. 93-10 at 18. Similarly, the 2007-11 CBA provides that "[t]he term of this Agreement shall be from April 2, 2007 to April 1, 2011." Dkt. No. 93-12 at 29. The sections of this CBAs, and all previous CBAs, providing for health insurance in retirement and setting forth the State's premium contribution rate do not contain any language pertaining to duration. As the Supreme Court has made clear that " 'contractual obligations will cease, in the ordinary course, upon termination of the bargaining agreement,' " CNH Indus. N.V. v. Reese , --- U.S. ----,
The only reasonable interpretation of the unambiguous language of the CBAs is that the premium contribution rates are subject to the general durational clauses and that this obligation ceased upon the termination of each respective CBA. See Gallo ,
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that there was no contractual agreement regarding premium contribution rates continuing past the expiration of the CBA. As such, the Court grants Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs' Contract Clause claim. In an excess of caution, however, the Court will address whether Defendants' actions impaired any such agreement and, if so, whether it was a reasonable and necessary means to serve a legitimate public purpose.
3. Substantial Impairment
In their cross motion, Plaintiffs contend the individuals that retired between January 1, 1983 and October 1, 2011, had well-established expectations that this longstanding benefit would continue as it had for twenty-eight (28) years. See Dkt. No. 97-33 at 19-20. Plaintiffs claim that this long-standing рractice and the language of the relevant CBAs rendered their expectations reasonable. See
" 'Total destruction' or repudiation of the contract is not necessary for an impairment to be substantial." Donohue v. Paterson ,
As discussed above, any expectation of a perpetually fixed contribution rate in retirement was unreasonable based on the plain language of the CBAs. The CBAs clearly provide that Plaintiffs would receive the health insurance coverage that was in effect at the time of their retirement. Nothing in the CBAs prevented the State from raising retirees' contribution rates upon the termination of the CBA.
Moreover, even if the Court were to consider the past practices, Defendants are correct that there is no basis for Plaintiffs' assertion that, "since the enactment of Chapter 14 of the Laws of 1983, the State's longstanding practice and established course of conduct further establishes the parties' intent and the State's contractual obligation to provide for the contribution of health insurance benefits for retired State employees, including a continuation of the State contribution rates in effect at the time a State employee retires[.]" Dkt. No. 55 at ¶ 152. The provision in the law guaranteeing that those who retired before January 1, 1983 would pay no contribution was specifically negotiated on an occasion twenty-eight years before this action was commenced. While it is true that, between 1983 and 2011, there was no change in the contribution rate paid by retirees, the State also made no change to the contribution rate paid by employees as well. As such, all that this pattern establishes is that, during the period in question, the need did not arise to make changes to the premium contribution rates.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on this claim because thе undisputed facts demonstrate that there was no substantial impairment of any contractual right.
"When a state law constitutes substantial impairment, the state must show a significant and legitimate public purpose behind the law." Buffalo Teachers Fed'n v. Tobe ,
An impairment is reasonable only if it is "specifically tailored to meet the societal ill it is supposedly designed to ameliorate." Sanitation & Recycling Indus. ,
In the present matter, the Court finds that the undisputed facts demonstrate that Chapter 491 of the Laws of 2011 served a significant and legitimate purpose that was reasonable and necessary. The law was enacted in an effort to close a multi-billion dollar budget gap caused by the Great Recession. See Dkt. No. 98 at ¶¶ 54-57. Therefore, it is beyond dispute that the Legislature's public purpose in enacting the law was legitimate. See Buffalo Teachers Fed'n ,
Plaintiffs argue that Defendants' claim that increasing the health insurance premiums for individuals that retired between January 1, 1983 and October 1, 2011, was reasonable and necessary is belied by the record. See Dkt. No. 97-33 at 21. "First, according to the State's witness James Dewan, the annual savings to the State to increase the contribution levels for those individuals that retired was between $20
First, as set forth in detail above, in the Fiscal Year 2011-12, the State was facing a $10 billion budget gap. Plaintiffs' attempts to downplay the State's dire fiscal situation
Second, the undisputed facts demonstrate that the action taken by Defendants were narrowly tailored. In Fiscal Years 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12, the State was required to adopt a range of measures to close the large budget gaps and achieve a balanced budget. The measures adopted in these years touched on a range of State activities, including: reductions in State payments for public schools, healthcare providers, local governments, social services and other services; imposition of cost controls on the operations of State agencies; increases in tax revenues, including personal income taxes, sales taxes, and other taxes; the deferral of required payments to the State pension system; and the use of non-recurring resources. See Dkt. No. 98 at ¶ 57. The Fiscal Year 2011-12 gap-closing plan consisted of a range of measures to moderate spending growth and increasе receipts. See id. at ¶ 59. This plan, which lowered spending by approximately $8.5 billion, included the following reductions: $2.8 billion in education aid; $2.7 billion for Medicaid; $1.5 billion for State agency operations; and $1.6 billion for various other programs and activities. See id. at ¶¶ 60-61. The gap-closing plan also included approximately $860 million in actions that the Division of Budget characterized as non-recurring, including the use of certain fund balances and resources made available from state public authorities, as well as $324 million in increased revenues. See id. at ¶ 62. These are but a few of the actions that were taken to close the budget gap. In light of the considerable cuts made across all aspects of the State's spending, Plaintiff's argument that the extremely modest percentage increase in contribution rate is not narrowly tailored must be rejected. See Ambrose ,
Additionally, the Court rejects Plaintiffs' argument that the increase in the retirees' health insurance contribution rate was not
The undisputed facts establish that Chapter 491 of the Laws of 2011 and the administrative extension of the premium shift to retirees was a matter of exigency that addressed a societal and economic interest and was appropriately tailored, and that other measures were considered and implemented before this measure was resorted to. Bearing in mind that whether legislation violates the Contracts Clause does not turn on "[w]hether [it] is wise or unwise as a matter of policy," Home Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell ,
C. Second Cause of Action: Breach of Contract
In their second cause of action, Plaintiffs allege that the increase in the
"The essential elements of a breach of contract cause of action are 'the
In the present matter, in dismissing Plaintiffs' Contracts Clause cause of action, the Court held that there was no impairment of contract, i.e. , that the CBAs at issue did not promise Plaintiffs a perpetual premium contribution rate. It necessarily follows that Defendants did not breach this nonexistent contract term.
Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs' second cause of action.
D. Third and Fifth Causes of Action: Due Process
The third and fifth causes of action allege that the retirees' premium contribution increase violated Plaintiffs' right to due process under the Federal and State Constitutions. See Dkt. No. 55 at ¶¶ 106-15, 132-40. Defendants argue that these claims fail because Plaintiffs do not have a property interest in a perpetually fixed premium contribution rate and the New York State Constitution does not provide for the cause of action Plaintiffs assert. See Dkt. No. 93-1 at 26-29, 32-34. 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
The Fourteenth Amendment provides, in relevant part, that "[n]o state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. In order to demonstrate a violation of either substantive or procedural due process
"The Due Process Clause does not protect against all deprivations of constitutionally protected interests in life, liberty, or property, 'only against deprivations without due process of law.' " Rivera-Powell v. New York City Bd. of Elections ,
In the present matter, the Court finds that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as to Plaintiffs' due process claims because Plaintiffs had an adequate state court remedy available to them. Through the passage of the amendments to section 167(8) of the Civil Service Law and the Resolution passed by Defendant Hite amending section 73.3(b) of Title 4 of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations, Plaintiffs had notice of the changes to their health insurance contribution rates about to take effect. See Dkt. No. 93-2 at ¶ 47 (citing Dkt. No. 93-21). It is well settled that an Article 78 proceeding generally provides constitutionally adequate
Even assuming that the availability of an Article 78 proceeding did not preclude Plaintiffs' due process claims, they are nevertheless still subject to dismissal. While it is true that collective bargaining agreements can be the source of a property right entitled to due process protection, "not every contractual benefit rises to the level of a constitutionally protected property interest." Ezekwo v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp. ,
Here, as discussed above, Plaintiffs have failed to identify a term in any of the CBAs guaranteeing premium contributions at a fixed rate in perpetuity. In their response to Defendants' motion, Plaintiffs also appear to argue that, in addition to the rights created by the CBAs themselves,
In Perry v. Sindermann ,
In Barnes v. Zaccari ,
In Basciano v. Herkimer ,
The Second Circuit distinguished Basciano in Costello v. Town of Fairfield ,
Here, as in Costello , Plaintiffs have not suffered a complete loss of benefits. And, unlike Basciano , Plaintiffs have failed to cite to any relevant statute, regulation, or otherwise official promulgation that would support their claim of a mutually explicit understanding. Additionally, courts have been reluctant to find a property interest premised on a benefit conferred by a public
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as to Plaintiffs' due process causes of action.
E. Fourth Cause of Action: Violation of State Law
Plaintiffs' fourth cause of action alleges that Defendant Hite lacked the authority to administratively extend the premium shift. See Dkt. No. 55 at ¶¶ 116-31. Defendants claim that this cause of action "appears to have been brought pursuant to Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules and has been dismissed." Dkt. No. 93-1 at 9 (citing Dkt. No. 19 at 19-22). Plaintiffs have not responded to Defendants' motion insofar as it seeks dismissal of the fourth cause of action.
Having failed to address Defendants' motion as to this claim, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have abandoned this claim. See Jackson v. Fed. Exp. ,
F. Sixth Cause of Action: Violation of Article III, § 1 of New York State Constitution
In their sixth cause of action, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Hite and Megna violated Article III, § 1 of the New York State Constitution when they extended the premium contribution changes to retirees pursuant to the authority granted in section 167(8) of the Civil Sеrvice Law. See Dkt. No. 55 at ¶¶ 141-45. Defendants argue that the Court should decline to exercise over this state law claim which, in any event, has no merit because Defendants Hite and Megna acted in accordance with the express terms of section 167(8). See Dkt. No. 93-1 at 34-35.
Article III, § 1 of the New York State Constitution states that "[t]he legislative power of this state shall be vested in the senate and assembly." " 'The concept of the separation of powers is the bedrock of the system of government adopted by this State in establishing three coordinate and coequal branches of government, each charged with performing particular functions.' " Garcia v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Health & Mental Hyg. ,
Section 167(8) of the Civil Service Law provides as follows:
Notwithstanding any inconsistent provision of law, where and to the extent that an agreement between the state and an employee organization entered into pursuantto article fourteen of this chapter so provides, the state cost of premium or subscription charges for eligible employees covered by such agreement may be modified pursuant to the terms of such agreement. The president, 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.
Plaintiffs first contend that Defendants' motion for summary judgment must be denied because, at the time the State changed the cost of retiree contribution rates, effective October 1, 2011, Defendant Hite was serving as the Director of Division of Classification and Compensation and the Deputy Commissioner for the Department of Civil Service. See Dkt. No. 97-33 at 32. Plaintiffs argue that, "[i]n order to modify the civil service law to include modification to retiree health insuranсe, as set forth in Defendant Hite's correspondence to Defendant Megna, dated September 21, 2011, these individuals were required to have been serving in a legislative capacity, which they were not."
To the extent that Plaintiffs are attempting to argue that section 167(8) is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority, their argument is unpersuasive. In Retired Public Employees Assoc., Inc. v. Cuomo ,
the power given to the Civil Service Commission, with the approval of the Budget Director, to modify health insurance contribution rates for retirees and non-represented state employees is entirely dependent upon - and limited by the terms of - a negotiated agreement between the state and an employee organization modifying the contribution rates for current employees.... Contrary to petitioners' contention, the standard set forth by the Legislature - that any change in the retiree statutory contribution rate must be tied to a collectively bargained rate - provides adequate guidance for the exercise of that discretion, as "there need not be a specific and detailed legislative expression authorizing a particular executive act [where, as here,] the basic policy decisions underlying the [actions authorized] have been made and articulated by the Legislature."
Next, the Court finds unpersuasive Plaintiffs' argument that Defendant Hite was not authorized to increase the premium contribution rate for retirees pursuant to section 167(8) because she had not filed an oath of office as President of the Civil Service Commission or Commissioner of the Department of Civil Service. Section 9 of the New York State Public Officers Law provides in relevant part as follows:
If there is but one deputy, he shall, unless otherwise prescribed by law, possessthe powers and perform the duties of his principal during the absence or inability to act of his principal, or during a vacancy in his principal's office. If there be two or more deputies of the same officer, such officer may designate, in writing, the order in which the deputies shall act, in case of his absence from the office or his inability to act, or in case of a vacancy in the office, and if he shall fail to make such designation, the deputy longest in office present shall so act.
Plaintiffs have provided only conclusory allegations in support of their opposition to Defendants' motion, which the Court finds unpersuasive. Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs' sixth cause of action.
G. Seventh Cause of Action: Civil Rights Violation Under
The seventh cause of action purports to be a separate cause of action under
Having already found that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs' federal claim and because
H. Eighth Cause of Action: Contract Rights Established by Statute and Practice
In the eighth cause of action, Plaintiffs allege that the retirees' premium contribution increase violated Plaintiffs' contract rights established by statute and longstanding practice. See Dkt. No. 55 at ¶¶ 150-55. Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment as to this claim because (1) it is well established that
As Defendants correctly note, courts are hesitant to read contractual rights into statutes because to do so would too easily preclude the State from changing its policies:
[A]bsent some clear indication that the legislature intends to bind itself contractually, the presumption is that "a law is not intended to create private contractual or vested rights but merely declares a policy to be pursued until the legislature shall ordain otherwise" ... Policies, unlike contracts, are inherently subject to revision and repeal, and to construe lawsas contracts when the obligation is not clearly and unequivocally expressed would be to limit drastically the essential powers of a legislative body.
National R. Passenger Corp. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. ,
In Retired Public Employees Assoc., Inc. v. Cuomo ,
Contrary to Plaintiffs' arguments, the Court finds that Civil Service Law § 167(1) did nothing more that set forth policy and did not create vested contractual rights. Its terms do not "clearly and unequivocally" express an immutable contractual guarantee. Indeed, all courts to have considered this argument have rejected it. See Retired Public Emps. Assoc., Inc. ,
Moreover, the alleged "past practice" of providing higher contribution rates prior to 2011 does not change this conclusion. "Courts also may look to the past practice of the parties to give definition and meaning to language in an agreement, including a collective bargaining agreement, which is ambiguous." Aeneas McDonald Police Benev. Assoc. v. City of Geneva ,
First, as discussed above, while it is true that, between 1983 and 2011, there was no change in the contribution rate paid by retirees, the State also made no change to the contribution rate paid by employees as well. As such, all that this pattern establishes is that, during the period in question, the need did not arise to make changes to the рremium contribution rates and that individuals who retired after January 1, 1983 paid the same contribution rate as current employees. Second, even if
Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs' eighth cause of action.
I. Plaintiffs' Motion to Preclude the Declarations of Colafati and Decker
1. Standard
Federal Rule 26 requires parties to disclose the identity of individuals "likely to have discoverable information ...that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defense." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a). Parties are also required to update and supplement their disclosures and other discovery responses in "a timely manner." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). Additionally, Rule 26(a)(2)(A) requires a party to disclose "the identity of any witness it may use at trial to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A). Indeed, "the identity of any witness who may be used to provide expert testimony, whether specifically retained for that purpose or not, must be disclosed." DVL, Inc. v. General Electric Co. ,
If a party fails to disclose a witness under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) or (e), a party may not use that witness unless the failure to disclose was substantially justified or harmless. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). "In determining whether preclusion is appropriate, courts must consider: (1) the reasons for the delay in providing the evidence; (2) the importance of the evidence precluded; (3) the prejudice to the opposing party from having to address the new evidence; and (4) the possibility of a continuance." In re Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. Sec., Derivative, & ERISA Litig. ,
2. Declaration of Dominic Colafati
In their motion, Plaintiffs note that, "[c]ontained within Mr. Colafati's Declаration is data and analysis concerning New York State's finances during all times relevant in this action allegedly based on records maintained by the DOB in the regular course of its business which have not been identified or disclosed to Plaintiffs, including quoted reports from 'Standards and
Having considered the parties' submissions and the applicable law, the Court denies Plaintiffs' motion to preclude the declaration of Mr. Colafati. Initially, the Court notes that, in their statement of material facts, Defendants relied on Mr.
Next, the Court finds that Mr. Colafati's declaration does not constitute expert testimony. Rather, Mr. Colafati simply set forth institutional facts (many of which were publically known), not facts that were personal to him. Mr. Colafati's testimony is rationally based on his experience working fоr the Division of Budget and is not based on specialized knowledge.
Finally, the Court finds that Plaintiffs did not suffer prejudice from Defendants failure to disclose Mr. Colafati. All of the information contained in Mr. Colafati's declaration is contained in the declaration of James DeWan, who was listed in Defendants' Rule 26 disclosure and whom Plaintiffs did depose. See Dkt. No. 97-18; Dkt. No. 97-12 at 3.
Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiffs' motion to preclude the declaration of Dominic Colafati.
3. Declaration of Darryl Decker
Darryl Decker has been employed by the New York State Governor's Office of Employee Relations ("GOER") since 1996. See Dkt. No. 91-4 at ¶ 1. According to Plaintiffs, "[b]ased on his positions and his role as the 'lead health benefits negotiator for several CBAs' since 1999, Mr. Decker testifies to the meaning of certain language contained in the Health Insurance Articles of the collective bargaining agreements made between the State and Council 82 going back to as far as the 1982 to 1985 collective bargaining agreement,
Having considered Plaintiffs' arguments, the Court denies the motion to preclude the declaration of Darryl Decker. The information contained in Mr. Decker's declaration is also available through the declaration of Priscilla Feinberg, Mr. Decker's predecessor. See Dkt. No. 93-5. Since Plaintiffs were given the opportunity to depose Ms. Feinberg, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they suffered any prejudice from Defendants' Rule 26 violation.
Based on the foregoing, the Court denies Plaintiffs' motion to preclude the declaration of Darryl Decker.
IV. CONCLUSION
After carefully reviewing the entire record in this matter, the parties' submissions and the applicable law, and for the above-stated reasons, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 93) is GRANTED ; and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 97) is DENIED ; and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiffs' motion to preclude the declarations of Dominic Colafati and Darryl Decker is DENIED ; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in Defendants' favor and close this case; and the Court further
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 24, 2018
Albany, New York
/s/ Mae A. D'Agostino
Mae A. D'Agostino
U.S. District Judge
Notes
The instant case is one of elеven related cases currently before this Court, all brought against, for the most part, the same individual Defendants and are all related to the increase in contribution rates for retirees' health insurance. See Donohue v. Cuomo , No. 1:11-cv-1530 (N.D.N.Y.); NYSCOBA, Inc. v. New York , No. 1:11-cv-1523 (N.D.N.Y.); N.Y.S. Law Enforcement Officers Union Council 82, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. New York , No. 1:11-cv-1525 (N.D.N.Y.); Police Benevolent Assoc. of the N.Y.S. Troopers, Inc. v. New York , No. 1:11-cv-1526 (N.D.N.Y.); N.Y.S. Police Investigators Assoc., Local 4 IUPA, AFL-CIO v. New York , No. 1:11-cv-1527 (N.D.N.Y.); Police Benevolent Assoc. of N.Y.S., Inc. v. New York , No. 1:11-cv-1528 (N.D.N.Y.); Krey v. Cuomo , No. 1:11-cv-1529 (N.D.N.Y.); Spence v. New York , No. 1:11-cv-1533 (N.D.N.Y.); Roberts v. New York , No. 1:12-cv-46 (N.D.N.Y.); N.Y. Court Officers Assoc. v. Hite , No. 1:12-cv-532 (N.D.N.Y.); Brown v. New York , No. 1:13-cv-645 (N.D.N.Y.). With minor variations, the related cases all assert the same causes of action and raise the same arguments in the pending motions for summary judgment. The Court has determined that Donohue v. Cuomo , No. 1:11-cv-1530 (N.D.N.Y.) shall serve as the "Lead Case." Familiarity with the Lead Case is presumed. The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the related Memorandum-Decision and Order in the Lead Case into this Memorandum-Decision and Order and will only address those facts and legal issues that are distinct from the Lead Case.
The Court notes that Plaintiffs object to the assertion that Defendant Hite was Acting Commissioner of the New York State Department of Civil Service. See Dkt. No. 87 at ¶ 10. The same objection was raised and addressed by the Court in the Lead Case and will not be repeated in the present matter.
To avoid confusion, anytime the Court references a specific page number for an entry on the docket, it will cite to the page number assigned by the Court's electronic filing system.
Throughout their response to Defendants' Statement of Material Facts, Plaintiffs "[d]eny that Defendant Patricia A. Hite was the Acting Commissioner of the New York State Department of Civil Service as she failed to file, with the Department of State, a Public Officer Oath/Affirmation for such capacity." See, e.g. , Dkt. No. 98 at ¶¶ 9, 47, 50 (citing Dkt. No. 93-24). In support of this position, Plaintiffs cite to a form entitled "DESIGNATION OF DEPUTY" in which the outgoing Commissioner of the New York State Department of Civil Service, Nancy Groenwegen, designated Patricia Hite to serve as Acting Commissioner upon her departure. See Dkt. No. 93-24 at 2. The following page is a document entitled "PUBLIC OFFICER OATH/AFFIRMATION" signed by Patricia Hite. See id. at 3. Both documents were filed with the New York Department of State on December 22, 2010. See id. at 2-3. Aside from citing to this document, Plaintiffs fail to provide any coherent argument why Plaintiff Hite was not actually the Acting Commissioner upon Nancy Groenwegen's departure. In fact, the designation of Defendant Hite as acting commissioner appears to have occurred in compliance with the relevant state procedures. See
Plaintiffs deny this statement "to the extent that there is a reference to a single collective bargaining agreement" but then acknowledge that the "CSEA and the State are parties to the ASU, OSU, ISU and DMNA collective bargaining agreements that contain the identical provision in Section 9.14 of each respective agreement." Dkt. No. 98 at ¶ 16. Plaintiffs make the same objection each time Defendants provide a citation to a single CBA, yet always acknowledge that identical language is contained in each of the omitted CBAs. See, e.g.,
The Court notes that this language is contained in Article 50 of the ASU agreement, Article 54 of the OSU agreement, Article 55 of the ISU agreement, and Article 43 of the DMNA agreement. See Dkt. No. 98 at ¶ 21.
While Plaintiffs generally admit the content of Defendant Hite's September 21, 2011 letter, they deny that the State was authorized to modify the premium contribution rates for retirees. See Dkt. No. 98 at ¶ 45.
The Court notes that, while Plaintiffs admit this statement, they "assert that the change to health insurance premium contribution levels for current employees represented by CSEA was negotiated, while there were no such negotiations on behalf of retirees entitled to the premium contribution levels pursuant to the collective bargaining agreements in effect between January 1, 1983 and October 1, 2011." Dkt. No. 98 at ¶ 79 (citing Hanna Decl., ¶¶ 37-41). Plaintiff further "assert that the State's chief negotiator did not consider cost savings when he advanced the issue to raise the premium contribution rates of individuals already retired."
The Court notes that Plaintiffs object to any statement of fact regarding Defendant Hite on these same grounds.
In the caption of this cause of action, Plaintiffs cite to
Of course, Tackett arose in a different context than the claims presented here. Specifically, those cases were brought under ERISA , which governs relationships and agreements between private employees and their employees but excludes public employers and employees, like Plaintiffs here. See
District courts have supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that "form part of the same case or controversy" as other claims over which the court has original jurisdiction.
In the present matter, considering the advanced stage of the litigation and the Court's familiarity with the issues in this case, combined with the likely hardship to both parties should Plaintiffs re-file in state court, the factors clearly weigh in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction. See
The Court notes that Plaintiffs' response did not address Defendants' argument that their due process claim is precluded because of the availability of constitutionally adequate post-deprivation process through an Article 78 proceeding. See Dkt. No. 97-33 at 28-30.
Even if the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to preclude Mr. Colafati's declaration, Defendants would still be entitled to summary judgment as to all claims because Mr. Colafati's declaration was only relevant in determining whether Defendants had a legitimate public interest in impairing the alleged contract.