2003 Lay-Offs Found to Have Violated Workers' Rights
JPE MEMBERS - Although this is a great victory, no remedy was awarded by the court. Rather, the 2nd Circuit has send the case back to the District Court so equitable relief can be fashioned. The remand, potential for further appeals, and the work required to develop the remedy or remedies in this case will take some time. How long? Well, it took ten years to get the decision, we must be prepared to wait for an order from the court as to damages and a remedy.
Please email, Atty Segar at
with your individual damages. For example, lost wages and benefits, out of pocket medical expenses, home foreclosure information, or any other loss (routine or unique) that you may have suffered as a result of the lay-off
A copy of the 2nd Circuit decision is located in the documents tab of this website.
After nearly a decade, the Second Circuit Court ruled that former Governor John Rowland’s lay off of nearly 3000 state employees was in fact illegal and a violation of our first ammendment right to freedom of association. The decision is a tremendous victory for the free speech rights of all Americans. The court held that when a governor punishes people because of the group to which they belong (whether it’s a union or a political party, or a religion), he or she violates our Constitution’s most cherished provisions.
Back in 2002, SEBAC was negotiating with the State of Connecticut and then Governor John Rowland. Facing a deficit, the Rowland administration sought $450 million in long-term concessions from state employees, and threatened that unless SEBAC agreed to his demands, approximately 3000 union members would lose their jobs. Although all state employees receive the same health care and pension benefits, the administration intentionally directed their demands for health care and pension concessions, solely to unionized state employees. When SEBAC didn’t agree to their demands, Rowland followed through with his threat and ordered the laying off of 2800 union members, and only union members.
While the terminated employees were told that they were being laid off due to economic necessity caused by the state’s 2003 deficit, the court found that the firings in fact had a minimal effect on the state’s expenses and did not correlate to the concession demands. The court found that the Rowland administration failed to show why the State’s fiscal health required terminating only union members, rather than implementing membership-neutral layoffs, and stated in its decision that for a state to terminate union members, and union members alone, in the hope of ultimately achieving economic concessions is little different from refusing to hire union members in the first place. “Conditioning public employment on union membership, no less than on political association, inhibits protected association and interferes with government employees’ freedom to associate.”
The case is now being remanded to the district court to craft appropriate equitable relief, and to consider the case for damages against the former governor.
The Second Circuit’s opinion shows that Rowland’s treatment of public service workers as the enemy is costly and destructive – to the workers and the vital public services they provide, and to every taxpayer. Instead, it is mutual respect – for the law, for public service workers, and most importantly the public we all serve – which will move us forward towards a better future. Our country and state simply function better when top officials work with and for working families, instead of against them.
Ultimately the court’s decision is a welcome reminder that in America it is not just the powerful, the rich and the big corporations that have free speech rights. Ordinary Americans whether they work for the government, private industry, or their corner drug store, have rights too.
