Free Order - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

\ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DUR A A `
_ DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
‘ UU ( — : *
STATE EMPLOYEES BARGAINING : CIVIL ACTION NO? 5 Mm Q D U 3C'
AGENT COALITION, ET AL. : [~};.;_; ..,. . UP .
Plaintiffs, 3:O3CV22l (AVC) I" T J
V. :
3:O3cv221(AVC). March 10, 2006. On March 8, 2006, the court
denied the defendants’ motion for a stay pending appeal. Because
A this ruling entered one day before the window closed for the
defendants to file their reply brief, and that reply brief is now
before the court, the court construes that reply brief as a *.
motion for reconsideration. In that brief, the defendants
present for the first time a valid predicate from which the court i
could conclude that the executive orders at issue here are ., }
entitled to absolute legislative immunity. Specifically, as the
court previously reasoned in its January 18, 2006 ruling, the
. defendants would be entitled to absolute legislative immunity in
G this case only if they were able to show that the executive
` order(s) condemned here were authorized by some legislative
scheme. Although the defendants pointed to a statute, Conn. Gen.
Stat. § 4-85(b), as authorizing the action, they failed to
·”V present any evidence that the predicate economic conditions
( . existed authorizing the action under that statute, or that the
Governor invoked that authority when ordering the job
terminations here. Attached as Exhibit A to the instant reply
( brief, however, is an April 1, 2003 letter from the Office of the
State Comptroller to Governor Rowland indicating that, indeed, in
September of 2002, the predicate economic conditions existed —
that is, a deficit exceeding one percent, and that on December 6,
2002, the Governor furnished a deficit reduction plan, fulfilling
the only requirements for invoking budget modification authority
A under § 4-85(b)(2). This evidence, which was not before therw
court when it ruled on the defendants’ motion to dismiss; EE _ 4ppy_’` M
(although a website was cited in the defendants’ brief), I fg W13
constitutes a strong showing that the executive action(s) p fb EQ;
condemned here were, indeed, legislatively authorized andYP jg i
therefore entitled to absolute legislative immunity. _ ;Â¥ I iiii TY?
Accordingly, the defendants’ have demonstrated entitlement to Q VME
stay pending appeal because contrary to the court’s March S, 2©06 `W
ruling, they have made a strong showing on the merits that they
are entitled to absolute legislative immunity. This court wifT
not, however, go so far as to say conclusively that the ·
i` defendants have fully made their case for absolute legislative
immunity. For this to be so, the court is of the opinion that
they must still demonstrate that the Governor actually invoked §
4—85(b) when ordering the layoffs at issue here — an issue that
I remains undetermined. For these reasons, the motion for
reconsideration (document no. 101) is GRANTED. The relief
‘ requested is also GRANTED in that all discovery in this matter is
ordered STAYED pending appeal. ` _%4
i SO ORDERED. j ‘ A ` ( ` \ A ’ z
Alfredpv. Covello, U.S.D.J.