6/21/13 To All Members: The following update was provided by our Attorneys. We are in the process, along with the other unions of evaluating our options. As more information is known and or a decision is made how we will proceed, we will update you. On June 13, 2013, the Honorable Mary C. Jacobson, A.J.S.C. granted the State’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint in New Jersey Education Association, et. al. v. State of New Jersey, et. al., Docket No.: MER-L-771-12. This ruling dismissed Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint in its entirety. The Plaintiffs in this matter include large public sector unions, including PFANJ, as well as individual Plaintiffs. The Complaint was initially filed as a class action lawsuit; however Plaintiffs subsequently dropped these claims. Judge Jacobson’s decision was based largely on technical grounds, such as lack of jurisdiction, ripeness and lack of standing. Plaintiffs have forty-five (45) days from the date of the Order to appeal. Thus, any appeal must be filed by July 28, 2013. This matter was initially filed in April 2011 and challenged P.L. 2011, c. 78, specifically the increases in employee pension contributions, COLAs, the State’s failure to fund the several pension systems, the establishment of pension committees, and retirement health benefits contributions. The COLA issues were subsequently merged with Berg v. Christie, Docket No. MER-L-2996-11. The Court stayed this matter pending Judge Hurd’s decision in Berg, and the stay was lifted on August 8, 2012. The complaint was amended on August 23, 2012. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff’s deleted the COLA claims, class allegations and demand for money damages. The COLA issues are pending in the Appellate Division in conjunction with the Berg matter. All other issues were before Judge Jacobson. On October 5, 2012, the State filed a motion to dismiss the action. Plaintiffs filed opposition to the State’s motion on December 17, 2012. On February 21, 2013, Judge Jacobson heard oral argument on the State’s motion to dismiss. The oral argument lasted for approximately two and a half hours. On June 13, 2013, Judge Jacobson issued an Order supported by a written decision. Judge Jacobson dismissed Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint in its entirety. She found that Plaintiffs’ federal constitutional claims were barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity and therefore the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear those claims. The doctrine of sovereign immunity bars relief against States and their officers in both State and federal courts. The District Court dismissed many of the same federal claims on this basis when the case was before that Court. New Jersey Education Association v. State, Civ. No. 11-5024 (D.N.J. 2012). Based on this determination, Judge Jacobson dismissed the federal Contracts Clause claims in Count One, Count Three, Count Four and Count Six, as well as the Substantive Due Process claims in Count Two, Count Five and Count Seven. Next, Judge Jacobson dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims that P.L. 2011, c. 78 improperly delegated authority to pension committees to change benefit levels. The Court found that this claim was not yet ripe. Claims are not “ripe” for adjudication if the facts illustrate that the rights of the parties are “future, contingent and uncertain.” Indep. Realty Co. v. Tp. of N. Bergen, 376 N.J. Super. 295, 302 (App. Div. 2005). Here, the Court found that no pension committee had made any determinations concerning public employee pensions and that more factual development would be necessary to determine the harm, and the extent of the harm, caused to Plaintiffs. Thus, the claim was not ripe and was dismissed. However, the claim was dismissed without prejudice, which would allow the Plaintiffs to file a new complaint once the issue becomes ripe. The Court further found that Plaintiffs’ lacked standing to bring a claim challenging Section 40 of Chapter 78, which requires employees with less than twenty (20) years of service to make additional contributions to their retirement health insurance. Despite Plaintiff’s argument that they represent many individuals that will be affected by Section 40, the Court found that Plaintiffs had not identified any individual that would be affected by Section 40. Accordingly, Counts four, five, six and seven of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint were dismissed for lack of standing. Based on the decision, it appears that the claim can most likely be brought by an individual who is aggrieved by Section 40. Judge Jacobson next discussed the State Contracts Clause claims. The Court found that there is no contractual right to a fixed pension contribution rate. Further, the Court found that P.L. 2011, c. 78 serves a significant and legitimate public purpose. Accordingly, the remaining State Contracts Clause claims in the Amended Complaint were dismissed. The Court next dismissed the remaining Substantive Due Process claims. Judge Jacobson reasoned that Plaintiffs had not make a cognizable claim that the Legislature did not act rationally in concluding that Chapter 78 reforms would address the funding shortfalls and stabilize the pension system. Finally, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs claim that P.L. 2011, c. 78 violates the New Jersey Civil Rights Act. Judge Jacobson determined that this claim must be dismissed because Plaintiffs’ failed to show a violation of substantive due process. We disagree with Judge Jacobson’s decision and are currently determining the appropriate course of action. Many of the claims were dismissed largely on procedural grounds as opposed to the merits. The issue concerning the pension committees was dismissed without prejudice and may be revived once the matter becomes ripe. As for Section 40, an aggrieved individual can bring this claim. It once again appears that the Court overreached in dismissing the Amended Complaint. Respectfully, Dominick Marino President
Posted on: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 09:38:15 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015