Lamberty et al. v. Connecticut State Police Union et al.

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Lamberty et al. v. Connecticut State Police Union et al.
Case number: 21-1275
Status: Pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Important dates
Filed: March 14, 2015
District court decision:
Oct. 19, 2018
Appeals court decision:
Pending
District court outcome
Due to policy changes made by the State Police Union in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, the plaintiffs' claims are moot.
Appeals court outcome
Pending

This case is one of over a hundred public-sector union lawsuits Ballotpedia tracked following the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Janus v. AFSCME. These pages were updated through February 2023 and may not reflect subsequent case developments. For more information about Ballotpedia's coverage of public-sector union policy in the United States, click here. Contact our team to suggest an update.

Lamberty et al. v. Connecticut State Police Union et al. is a case pending appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The suit concerns whether the Connecticut State Police Union violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments by charging mandatory fair-share fees to non-members. Judge Victor Allen Bolden of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut ruled in favor of the defendants on October 19, 2018. The plaintiffs appealed to the Second Circuit, which dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction and remanded it to the district court. On March 26, 2021, Bolden granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. The plaintiffs appealed the ruling to the Second Circuit on May 14, 2021.[1][2][3][4]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiffs are Connecticut state troopers Collin Konow, Carson Konow, Joseph Mercer, and Marc Lamberty. The defendants are the Connecticut State Police Union, Melissa McCaw, Sandra Fae Brown-Brewton, and Connecticut Comptroller Kevin Lembo (D).
  • The issue: Did the Connecticut State Police Union violate the First and Fourteenth Amendment by charging non-members fair-share fees?
  • The presiding judge(s): Judge Victor Allen Bolden (U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut), Judges John Walker, Pierre Leval, and Joseph Bianco (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit)
  • The outcome: This lawsuit is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiffs are Collin Konow, Carson Konow, Joseph Mercer, and Marc Lamberty. They are represented by the National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation. The defendants are the Connecticut State Police Union, Melissa McCaw, Sandra Fae Brown-Brewton, and Connecticut Comptroller Kevin Lembo (D). They are represented by the Connecticut Office of the Attorney General.

    The plaintiffs in Lamberty et al. v. Connecticut State Police Union et al. first filed their lawsuit on March 14, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The plaintiffs, Connecticut state troopers, argued that fair-share fees, which were required for non-union members before Janus v. AFSCME, violated their First and Fourth Amendment rights.

    Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[1][2]

    • March 14, 2015: The plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Connecticut State Police Union, Sandra Fae Brown-Brewton, Kevin Lembo, Benjamin Barnes, and Lisa Grasso Egan.
    • April 24, 2015: The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
    • February 17, 2016: The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, arguing that Connecticut General Statute § 5-280 regarding mandatory union fees violated their rights and that the State Police Union failed to provide adequate pre-collection notice and procedural safeguards with their 2014-15 fee notice.
    • April 11, 2017: The plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment.
    • October 27, 2017: The court denied the motion for summary judgment in light of the pending Janus v. AFSCME decision.
    • August 9, 2018: The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that there was no longer any dispute of material fact since their right to decline fair-share fees was affirmed by Janus.
    • August 21, 2018: The Connecticut State Police Union informed the court that, due to the Janus decision, the union would reimburse the plaintiffs for all fair-share fees collected, plus interest.
    • August 30, 2018: The defendants filed an opposition to the motion for summary judgment, arguing that the suit should be dismissed as moot due to the Janus ruling and the union’s decision to cease collection and refund fair-share fees.
    • September 7, 2018: The plaintiffs filed a reply to the defendants’ opposition to summary judgment, questioning whether the refunds for fair-share fees were calculated correctly.
    • October 19, 2018: The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, asserting that their claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were now moot. Likewise, the plaintiffs’ claims for monetary relief were moot due to the defendant refunding fair-share fees. The order allowed the suit to be renewed if the defendants reintroduced fair-share fees or failed to adequately refund previously collected fees. Additionally, the court ordered the substitution of defendant Lisa Grasso Egan, who was sued in her official capacity as Undersecretary of Labor Relations, with the new officeholder Sandra Fae Brown-Brewton.
    • November 16, 2018: The plaintiffs filed a post-judgment motion for attorneys’ fees.
    • September 6, 2019: The court denied the plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees, indicating that the plaintiffs were not the prevailing party. Additionally, the court ordered the substitution of defendant Benjamin Barnes, who was sued in his official capacity as the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management, with the new officeholder Melissa McCaw.
    • September 13, 2019: The plaintiffs asked the court to reconsider their denial for attorneys’ fees.
    • October 4, 2019: The plaintiffs appealed the court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
    • October 1, 2020: The Second Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remanded it to the lower court.
    • March 26, 2021: Bolden granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.
    • May 14, 2021: The plaintiffs appealed to the Second Circuit.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut: October 19, 2018

    On October 19, 2018, Judge Victor Allen Bolden ruled that the plaintiffs’ claims were moot. Bolden wrote the following in the court's opinion:

    “ The law of the land thus has changed and there no longer is a legal dispute as to whether public sector unions can collect agency fees. They cannot. Moreover, none of the Defendants, in this case, are disputing that the law of the land has changed, or are trying to collect agency fees. In fact, indisputably, all of the Defendants have agreed to return the agency fees owed to the Plaintiffs … In the end, there is nothing for this Court to order Defendants to do now. Indeed, Plaintiffs' motion contains nothing to suggest that any reversal to a pre-Janus view of the law is imminent. As a result, their real concern is some unknown event at some unknown time. While there is no reason for the Court to award relief rooted solely in speculation, the Court nevertheless will deny this motion without prejudice.[5][6] ”

    Bolden was appointed in 2014 by President Barack Obama (D).

    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: October 1, 2020

    On October 1, 2020, a three-judge panel including Judges John Walker, Pierre Leval, and Joseph Bianco dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction:

    “ In sum, we have no jurisdiction at this juncture to consider an appeal of the October 2018 summary judgment decision or the subsequent 2019 attorneys’ fees decision. ... Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.[7][6] ”

    The panel also remanded the case to the district court, saying, "Finally, appellants have noted that, with respect to the issue of mootness, the district court also did not issue a final judgment regarding their separate request for a declaratory judgment. Thus, on remand, the district court will also need to formally address that claim."[7]

    Walker was appointed to the court in 1989 by President George H.W. Bush (R). Leval was appointed in 1993 by President Bill Clinton (D). Bianco joined the court in 2019 after being appointed by President Donald Trump (R).

    U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut: March 26, 2021

    On March 26, 2021, Bolden wrote:[3]

    “

    Beyond their attempt to introduce settlement negotiations for the Court’s consideration, Plaintiffs offer no evidence as to a “change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” ... Specifically, nothing set forth in Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration changes the Court’s conclusion that, given the Court’s disposition at summary judgment, Plaintiffs were not prevailing parties under § 1988. SJ Order at 17. Indeed, given the Court’s grant of the State Defendants’ and Union’s motions to dismiss, see supra, finding Plaintiffs to be prevailing parties would be an absurd result.

    Furthermore, to the extent Plaintiffs rely on policy-oriented arguments to assert that this Court’s denial of attorneys’ fees in this case would disincentivize parties from accepting substantive relief or from participating in Court-ordered settlement, the Court notes that finding the opposite way—namely, permitting communication undertaken as part of settlement negotiations to be considered as part of the Court’s determination on whether Defendants may be assessed attorneys’ fees—also likely would have significant consequences. ...

    Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying attorneys’ fees and expenses and, for the same reasons, also denies Plaintiffs’ oral motion to modify their request for attorneys’ fees to include additional fees incurred since last filing. [6]

    		”

    Legal context

    Janus v. AFSCME (2018)

    See also: Janus v. AFSCME

    On June 27, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a 5-4 decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (Janus v. AFSCME), ruling that public-sector unions cannot compel non-member employees to pay fees to cover the costs of non-political union activities.[8]

    This decision overturned precedent established in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education in 1977. In Abood, the high court held that it was not a violation of employees' free-speech and associational rights to require them to pay fees to support union activities from which they benefited (e.g., collective bargaining, contract administration, etc.). These fees were commonly referred to as agency fees or fair-share fees.[8]

    Justice Samuel Alito authored the opinion for the court majority in Janus, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch. Alito wrote, "Abood was poorly reasoned. It has led to practical problems and abuse. It is inconsistent with other First Amendment cases and has been undermined by more recent decisions. Developments since Abood was handed down have shed new light on the issue of agency fees, and no reliance interests on the part of public-sector unions are sufficient to justify the perpetuation of the free speech violations that Abood has countenanced for the past 41 years. Abood is therefore overruled."[8]

    Related litigation

    To view a complete list of the public-sector labor lawsuits Ballotpedia tracked between 2019 and 2023, click here.

    Number of federal lawsuits by circuit

    Between 2019 and 2023, Ballotpedia tracked 191 federal lawsuits related to public-sector labor laws. The chart below depicts the number of suits per federal judicial circuit (i.e., the jurisdictions in which the suits originated).

    Public-sector labor lawsuits on Ballotpedia

    See also: Public-sector union policy in the United States, 2018-2023

    Click show to view a list of cases with links to our in-depth coverage.

    v • e
    Public-sector labor lawsuits
    Federal lawsuits

    Adams v. Teamsters Union Local 429 • Akers v. Maryland State Education Association • Aliser v. SEIU California • Allen v. Ohio Civil Service Employees Association • Allen v. Santa Clara County Correctional • Anderson v. SEIU Local 503 • Babb v. California Teachers Association • Baisley v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers • Belgau v. Inslee • Bennett v. AFSCME • Bermudez v. SEIU Local 521 • Bierman v. Dayton • Boudreaux v. Louisiana State Bar • Boyle v. SEIU California • Brice v. California Faculty Association • California v. Azar • Campos v. Fresno Deputy Sheriff’s Association • Carey v. Inslee • Casanova v. IAM Local 701 • Chandavong et al. v. Fresno Deputy Sheriff's Association et al. • Cook v. Brown • Cooley v. California Statewide Law Enforcement Association • Crowe v. Oregon State Bar • Cruz v. Union Independiente Autentica de Empleados de la Autoridad de Acueductos y Alcantarillados • Danielson v. Inslee • Diamond v. Pennsylvania State Education Association • Doughty v. State Employees Association of New Hampshire, SEIU, Local 1984 • Durst v. OEA • Few v. United Teachers Los Angeles • File v. Hickey • Fischer v. Murphy • Fisk v. Inslee • Fizer v. Ohio Association of Public School Employees • Fleck v. Wetch • Grega v. Council of New Jersey State College Locals • Grossman v. Hawaii Government Employees Association • Gruber v. Oregon State Bar • Guppy v. City of Los Angeles • Halloran v. AFSCME Council 5 • Hamidi v. SEIU • Hannay v. Kent State • Hartnett v. Penn. State Education Association • Hendrickson v. AFSCME Council 18 • Hernandez v. AFSCME California • Hoekman v. Education Minnesota • Hough v. SEIU Local 521 • Imhoff v. California Teachers Association • Jackson v. Napolitano • James v. SEIU Local 688 • Janus v. AFSCME • Jarchow v. Wisconsin • Kabler v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1776 Keystone State • Wenzig v. SEIU Local 668 • Kopie v. International Federation of Professional and Technical Employees • Kurk v. Los Rios Classified Employees Association • Lamberty et al. v. Connecticut State Police Union et al. • LaSpina v. SEIU Pennsylvania State Council • Lee v. Ohio Education Association • Leitch v. AFSCME • Littler v. Ohio Association of Public School Employees • Loescher v. Teamsters Local 320 • Lutter v. JNESO • Mandel v. SEIU Local 73 • Marsh v. AFSCME Local 3299 • Martin v. California Teachers Association • Masuo v. AFSCME AFL-CIO • Matthews v. United Teachers of Los Angeles • Mattos v. AFSCME Council 3 • Mayer v. Wallingford-Swathmore School District • McCain v. Ventura County Federation of College Teachers, AFT Local 1828 • McCollum v. NEA-Alaska • McCutcheon v. CWA Local 7076 • McDonald v. Firth • Mendez v. CTA • Miller v. Inslee • Misja v. PSEA • Molina v. SEIU Local 668 • Mooney v. Illinois Education Association • Nearman v. SEIU Local 503 • Neely v. AFSCME Council 13 • Nguyen v. Admin. and Residual Employees Union • Nichols v. Home Care Providers Union • O'Callaghan v. Drake • Ochoa v. Public Consulting Group • Ocol v. Chicago Teachers Union • Ogle v. Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME, Local 11 • Oliver v. SEIU Local 668 • Pellegrino v. New York State United Teachers • Penning v. SEIU Local 1021 • Polk v. Yee • Popp v. ALPAI • Piekarski v. AFSCME Council 5 • Quirarte v. UDW AFSCME Local 3930 • Reisman v. Associated Faculties of the University of Maine • Rizzo-Rupon v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 141 • Routh v. Inslee • Schaszberger v. AFSCME Council 13 • Schell v. Oklahoma Supreme Court Justices • Schumaker v. Inslee • Seager v. UTLA • Seidemann v. Professional Staff Congress • Smith v. AFSCME Council No. 8 • Smith v. New Jersey Education Association • Smith v. Bieker • Solomon v. AFSCME District Council 37 • Stroeder v. Service Employees International Union, Local 503 • Sweeney v. Raoul • Sweet v. California Association of Psychiatric Technicians • Taylor v. Heath • Thompson v. AFSCME Council 89, Local 4013 • Thompson v. Marietta Education Association • Thulen v. AFSCME • Uradnik v. Inter Faculty Org. • Utke v. University of Connecticut American Association of University Professors • Weyandt v. PSCOA • Wholean v. CSEA SEIU Local 2001 • Wilford v. National Education Association • Williams v. PSEA • Wolf v. University Professional & Technical Employees • Yates v. Hillsboro Unified School District • Yohn v. California Teachers Association

    See also

    External links

    Case documents

    Appeals court

    Trial court

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 PacerMonitor, "Lamberty et al v. Connecticut State Police Union et al," accessed March 22, 2021
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 PacerMonitor, "Lamberty v. Connecticut State Police Union," accessed March 22, 2021
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 PacerMonitor, "Ruling and order on motions," March 26, 2021
    4. ↑ PacerMonitor, "Lamberty v. Connecticut State Police Union," accessed June 28, 2021
    5. ↑ U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, "Ruling and Order on Motion for Summary Judgment," October 19, 2018
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, "Summary Order," October 1, 2020
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 Supreme Court of the United States, Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, et al., June 27, 2018
    v • e
    Public-sector union policy in the United States
    Public-sector union policy in the United StatesBPstarlogo.png
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Lamberty_et_al._v._Connecticut_State_Police_Union_et_al.&oldid=9203478"