The Police Benevolent Association of the New York State Troopers, Inc. v.
Opinion
18-3049 The Police Benevolent Association of the New York State Troopers, Inc. v. The State of New York
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 27th day of July, two thousand twenty-two.
PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.*
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ROLAND J. RUSSELL, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JOHN P. MORETTI, JR., ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, RICKY D. PALACIOS, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ROBERT WELSH, FREDERICK W. SCHEIDT,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. No. 18-3049-cv
KATHLEEN C. HOCHUL, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PATRICIA A. HITE, INDIVIDUALLY, REBECCA A. CORSO, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ACTING COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT, CAROLINE W. AHL, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK STATE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, LANI V. JONES, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK STATE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ROBERT L. MEGNA, INDIVIDUALLY, ROBERT F. MUJICA, JR., IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF THE BUDGET, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COMPTROLLER OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
Defendants-Appellees.**
dispute growing out of the State’s 2011 decision to alter its rates of contribution to
retired former employees’ health insurance plans. We assume the parties’
familiarity with the facts, the procedural history of the case, and the
specifications of issues on appeal, which we set forth only as necessary to explain
our decision.
We reserved decision in this case pending disposition of Donohue v. Hochul,
No. 18-3193-cv, which was designated both in the district court and in this Court
as the lead case of eleven related cases alleging breach of contract and
constitutional contract-impairment claims based on the alteration of State health
insurance contribution rates for retirees. Following this Court’s final disposition
of Donohue, we directed the parties in this and the other related cases “to file
letter-briefs stating their views on how their case should be resolved in light of
Donohue v. Cuomo (‘Donohue II’), 980 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2020), Donohue v. Cuomo
(‘Donohue III’), 38 N.Y.3d 1 (2022), and Donohue v. Hochul, [32 F.4th 200 (2d Cir.
2022)] (‘Donohue IV’),” addressing in particular “the extent to which anything in
the collective bargaining agreements at issue in the case, or any other
circumstances specific to the case, distinguish the case from Donohue.” ECF No.
116 at 2. The State filed such a supplemental letter-brief, and the PBANYST
Plaintiffs filed a letter informing this Court that they do not oppose the State’s
filing. We construe that non-opposition as a concession that this case is materially
indistinguishable from Donohue and therefore that we should affirm the district
court’s grant of summary judgment to the State on the same grounds as we did in
Donohue IV.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
The Police Benevolent Association of the New York State Troopers, Inc. v. (The Police Benevolent Association of the New York State Troopers, Inc. v.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.