Scribd Logo
Fazer o upload

Bem-vindo(a) ao Scribd!

  • Locust Club Lawsuit

    Enviado por

    WXXI News
    7 visualizações13 páginas
    Locust Club sues city of Rochester over the independent Police Accountability Board.

    Direitos autorais

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formatos disponíveis

    PDF ou leia online no Scribd

    Você considera este documento útil?

    Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

    Denunciar este documento
    Locust Club sues city of Rochester over the independent Police Accountability Board.

    Direitos autorais:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Baixe no formato PDF ou leia online no Scribd
    Sinalizar o conteúdo como inadequado
    7 visualizações13 páginas

    Locust Club Lawsuit

    Enviado por

    WXXI News
    Locust Club sues city of Rochester over the independent Police Accountability Board.

    Direitos autorais:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Baixe no formato PDF ou leia online no Scribd
    Sinalizar o conteúdo como inadequado
    de 13
    | @EEED:_WONROE COUNTY CLERK 0570372035 05702 Fw {ADEE NO. METER NYSCEP OC. WO, pecerven nvscee. 08/39/2035 SUPREME COURT STATEOF NEW YORK COUNTY OF MONROE ROCHESTER FOLICE LOCUST CLUB, INC., MICHAEL MAZZEO and VERIFIED PETITION KEVIN SIZER, Petitioners, Index. No. - againat— CITY OF ROCHESTER, LOVELY A. WARREN, 15 Mayor ofthe City of Rochester, COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, and the MONROE ‘COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, ‘Respondents Peitiones, Rochester Police Locust Cub, Ine, Michael Mazzeo and Kevin Sizer, by and through their attomeys,Trevett Cristo, Daniel P. DeBolt, Esq, a and fr its Verified Petition, respect allege as follows: NATURE OF PROCEEDING 1. This is @hybrid proceeding under Anil 78 ofthe Civil Practice Law and Rules and Seeton 3001 seeking declaratory judgment. Pettiner seek adecatation tht Los! Law No.2 is invalid void and unenforceable and permanent injunction baring the eeférendum fom being placed on the ballot for the November 5, 2019 election andlor removing the referendum from the ballot and enjoining Respondents from using further pubic funds in connection with the referendum, slong with such other and further relief asthe Court may deem just and appropriate (FILED: _MONROE_COUNTY_CLERK_09/09/72019 04:02 PM Dee. HS, necerveD nvcces. 06/00/2088 JURISDICTION 2. The Court has jurisdiction to gran the relief requested under Article 78 ofthe CPLR and CPLR § 3001. VENUE 3. Venue in Monroe County Supreme Court is proper based upen CPLR §§ S04 and 506 based upon the location and residence ofthe putes and location where the challenged ‘determination was made by Respondents. PARTIES 4. Petitioner Rochester Police Locust Club, ne. (‘Locust Club") i a not-for-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws ofthe State of New York and with its ‘Principal place of business located within the ity of Rochester, County of Monroe. 5. The Locust Club san employee organization es defined by Civil Service Law § 201(5) ands the recognized exclusive bargaining representative forall Police Officers, Investigator, Sergeants, Lieutenants and Captains employed by the City of Rochester, witha small numberof exceptions not directly relevant to this dispute, 6, Michel Mazzeo isan Investigator employed by the City of Rochester, the President ofthe Locust Club anda resident of the County of Monroe. 7. Kevin Sizer Police Officer employed by the City of Rochester, the Treasurer ‘of the Locust Club and a resident ofthe City of Rochester, County of Monroe. 8, Respondent City of Rochester (“City”) is, upon information and belief, a ‘municipal corporation organized under and subject to the laws of the State of New York, with ts principal office ocated within the City of Rochester, County of Monroe. LED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 0970372015. 04;02-FM THDEK WO, urASSTNED NYSCEP DOC. HO. anenrven wvscep. 06/00/2038 | | 9. Respondent Lovely A. Warren (“Mayor Warren is, upon information and belie, the clsted chiefexecutve officer ofthe City of Rochester, with principal place of business located within the City of Rochester, County of Monroe. Mayor Warren is named as 8 ‘respondent in er officiel expacity. 10. Respondent Council ofthe City of Rochester (“City Council is, upon, information and belie, the governing legislative body ofthe City of Rochester, organized under ‘and subject to the laws ofthe State of New York, witha principal place of business located ‘within the City cf Rochester, County of Monroe. 11, Respondent Monroe County Board of Elections (‘Boar of Elections") is, upon information andtelie, x Department of Monroe County responsible for administering al aspects ofeletons in Monroe County, organized under and subject othe avs of the State of New ‘York, wit a przcpal place of business located within the City of Rochester, County of Mone. LOCAL LAW NO.2 12, GnMay 21, 2019, City Council passed Local Law No, 2, described as “Local Law amending be City Charter with respect to establishing the Rochester Police Accountability Board”, A Cops of Local Law No. 2s attached as Exhibit A. 13. Local Law No, 2 was approved by Mayor Warren on June 6,2019 and received by the City Cles's Officer on June 7,2019. Mayor Warren's spproval i contained on te last page of Exhibit A 14, The specific details of Local Law No. 2 willbe discussed in greater detail below and inthe accompanying memorandum of law. Briefly summarized, Local Law No. 2 purports to amend the City Charter by adding «new Article XVII eeating a Police Accountebilty Board, ‘which is then given authority over discipline of Rochester City Police Offices. sofas | (GLEE: “NONROE COUNTY CEERK 0570972015 OF vSCER nom. wo. 1 nronrvep nvsceD; 06/00/2020 18, Local Law No.2 also provides: “Tis lca aw shall be submited forthe approval of the electors tthe general election o beheld on November 5, 2019 and shall tke effect oly ifand when itis ented as having ben approved by the afimative vote ofa maori of te qualified electors voting on sid proposition.” Exhibit A (Section 2), 16, Upon information and belie, he proposed referendum language to appear onthe tellot is s flows: This proposal would amend the Rochester City Charter to authorize the creation ‘of thePolice Accountability Board (PAB). The PAB would consist of nine ‘unpaid Rochester residents: one appointed by the Mayor and eight appointed by the Chy Council; fone af the Cone’ appointees willbe nominated hy 8 coalition of community organizations, The PAB would have the power to independently investigate civilian complaints subpoena information for its invesdgations and determine whether individual officers have committed ‘miseanduct, The PAB will als erete disciplinary guidelines, with an ‘opportunity for input from the Chief of Police and the police union, Ifthe PAB finds, after a heating, that an officer has committed misconduct, the Chef of Police would be rere to impose discipline consistent with the disciplinary guidelines. The PAB would also recommend changes to the Police Department's policies, practices, and training, PETITIONERS’ CLAIMS 17, Petitioners claim that Local Law No. 2s ilega, invalid and unenforceable on 8 nal details and discussion, number of grounds, each of which willbe discussed below, with ad of applicable statutes and case law inthe accompanying memorandum of lw. ‘A. Local Law No.2 Violates Civil Service Law § 75 and Unconsolidated Law § 891, 18, Petitioners” submit that Locel Law No.2 is invalid and unenforceable because it violates Civil Service Law § 75 by removing the authority of the Police Chief to distpline pole ‘officers and ty altering the hesring procedure through a means other than a collective bargaining, agreement | @ELED:_WONROE COUNTY CLERK 0570872015 © {CEP DOC. WO. 1 nncesvep nveceP: 09/03/2029 19, _Asexplained in the accompanying memorandum of law, CSL. § 75 provides a ‘mandated procelure as the exclusive mechanism by which certain public employees, including ‘those holding «position by permanent appointment in the competitive class ofthe clasified civil service, may be subjected to discipline. 20, The positions included within the bargining unit represented by the Locust Chub | ~ Police Officer Investigator, Sergeant, Lieutenant and Captain areal inthe competitive class ofthe lasifiedcivil service. 21, Thus, with he exertion of thos newly hired or newly promoted offices who ae still within their probationary period, members ofthe bargsining unit are covered by the | procedural and substantive protections of CSL § 75. 22. As discussed in the sccompanying memorandum of av, CSL §75 requires that te bearing on sisted disciplinary charges be held before “the officer or body having the power to remove the peron agains whom such charges ae prefered” or a designee. In the case of@ designe, such hearing officer then issues only a recommendation, which is submitted to the officer or body having the power to remove the employee “for review and decision.” Section 891 of the Uncosslidated Laws mirors CSL §75 with respect othe hearing proces. 23, Pursuant to Section 8A-1 ofthe City Charter, “the Chief of Police shall be the sppointing authority for members and employees of the Police Department.” 24, Currently, asthe appointing authority itis the Chief of Police who hus the power to remove members ofthe barguning unit represented by the Locust Club and is therefore the officer who males the final determivaton on whether or not discipline shouldbe imposed and, if 50, to what degre, subject only to review pursuant to CSL. § 76, | GEEEDSNONROE COUNTY CUERE 0570572015 04-02 FH Nex No, 25. No provision of Local Law No. 2 purports to amend or modify Section 8A-1 of the Cty Charter to change the appointing authority for members of the Police Department. 26. Local Law No. 2 specifically states thatthe newly ereated Police Accountability Board ("Board") woul? have “the power to discipline RPD Officers if« complaint of misconduct is sustained” Exhibit A at Section 18-5(A), 27, Local Law No. also empowers the Board to establish disciplinary matrix and, indoing so, to override any objection by the Chef of Police. See Exhibit A at Section 18-5(B). | 28. Under Local Law No. 2, the disciplinary hearing would be held before a hearing panel comprised of thre (3 rotating Board members, see Exhibit A at Se than before the Chief of Police or his designee. 29. Finally, Local Law No. 2 specifically indicates that “(he Board's determination 18-5¢(), rather of discipline shall be binding on the Chief, who shall impose the discipline determined by the ‘Board in accordance with the matrix within five (5) days of receipt ofthe Board's decision.” Exhibit A at Sestion 18-504). 30. Respondents submit thatthe foregoing aspects of Local Law No. 2 clearly violate Civil Service Law § 75and Unconslidted Law § 891 and that Local Law No.2 is therefore | ‘void and unenforccable B, Local Law No.2 Violate the Taylor Law 31. Respondents submit that Local Law No.2 also volte the Taylor Law (Civil Service Law §§ 200, et seq) by usurping the Mayor's authority and by restictng the terms and conditions of employment which may be negotiated between the City andthe Locust Club, 32, Ascliscused in the accompanying memorandum of le, the Taylor Law specifically vests the righ, authority and duty ofa public employer to negotiate with an roe easeo/20a8 | GERD _WONROW COUNTY CEERR 0570572015 04703 Fy INDEX Ho. cmployee organization conceming tems and conditions of employment in the chief executive officer of such pubic employer, which in the present case is Mayor Warren. 33. _Asdliseused inthe accompanying memorandum of Law, al legislature may sot usurp the chef executive officer's authority with espect to negotiations under the Teylor Lew. 34, Respondents submit that Local Law No.2 violates the Taylor Law by removing ‘oth the ability of the Mayor, as the chief exeetive officer ofthe City, and the Locust Club to negotiate all ofthe discipline elated issues et forth in Locel Law No 2, which are ‘unquestionably terms and conditions of employment 35. Local Law No. 2 also violates Section 209-.1(@) ofthe Tarlor Law by discontinuing terms ofthe CBA between the City and Locust Club, C. Local Law No.2 Violates Article 1, Section 17 of the NYS Constitution 36, Respondents submit that Local Law No. 2 also violates Article 1, Seotion 17 of the New York State Constitution, which expressly provides employees with “the right to ‘organize and to bargain collectively through representatives oftheir own choosing.” 37, tis submitted that because Local Law No.2 attempts to legislatively establish specific terms and conditions of employment for members of the Police Department, it infringes ‘on the rights oF those employees to bargain collectively through their chosen sepresentative- the Locust Club 38. As discussed in Section D, infra, it is also submitted that Lecal Law No.2 ‘violates the Taylor Law by causing the City to violate the terms ofthe collective bargaining agreement between the City and the Locust Cub, aot 09/00/2039 | (@TLED:—WONROE COUNTY CLERK 05; zex wo. uwassronen D. Local Law No.2 Violates the CBA 29, The City and Locust Cub are paris toa collective bareining agreement (°CBA”) govering the terms and conditions of employment for members ofthe bargaining unit represented bythe Locust Club, copy of which 40, Although the effective dats ofthe CBA ar listed a July 1, 2016 to June 30, attached as Exhibit B. 2019, pursuant 0 Civil Service Law § 208-212) all ofthe terms ofthe CBA remain in fll force and effect until» successor agreement i reached, which has not yet occured. AL. Article 20 ofthe CBA addresses the subject of discipline in detail, providing rights and procedures relating tothe investigation and othe manner in which the hearing under CSL § 75 wil te conducted. 42. Asexplained in greater detail inthe accompanying memorandum of law, Local Law No.2 blatantly violates Article 20 ofthe CBA. 43. The CBA also contains, as Appendix 1, disciplinary matrix. 44, Local Law No.2 expressly states that the Board will develop and adopt a

    Você também pode gostar