UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________________________ DANNY DONOHUE, as President of the Civil Service

Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO; CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC., LOCAL 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO; WILLIAM COLEMAN, WILLIAM MILLER, JOHN METZGIER, JACK WIEDEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated, Plaintiffs, -againstTHOMAS J. MADISON, JR., individually and in his official capacity as Executive Director of the New York State Thruway Authority and the New York State Canal Corporation; CARLOS MILLAN, individually and in his official capacity as Director of Employee Relations and Employee Safety, New York State Thruway Authority and New York State Canal Corporation; BRIAN U. STRATTON, individually and in his official capacity as Director of the New York State Canal Corporation; HOWARD P. MILSTEIN, individually and in his official capacity as Chairman of New York State Thruway/ Canal Corporation Board of Directors; DONNA J. LUH, individually and in her official capacity as Vice-Chairman of New York State Thruway/ Canal Corporation Board of Directors; E. VIRGIL CONWAY, individually and in his official capacity as Board Member of New York State Thruway/ Canal Corporation Board of Directors; RICHARD N. SIMBERG, individually and in his official capacity as Board Member of New York State Thruway/ Canal Corporation Board of Directors; BRANDON R. SALL, individually and in his official capacity as Board Member of New York State Thruway/ Canal Corporation Board of Directors; J. DONALD RICE, JR., individually and in his official capacity as Board Member of New York State Thruway/ Canal Corporation Board of Directors; JOSE HOLGUIN-VERAS, individually and in his official capacity as Board Member of New York State Thruway/ Canal Corporation Board of Directors; JOSEPH BRESS, individually and in his official capacity as Chief Negotiator of New York State Thruway/ Canal Corporation; NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY; NEW YORK STATE CANAL CORPORATION, Defendants. _____________________________________________________

COMPLAINT Demand for Jury Trial Civil Action No.:

Plaintiffs, DANNY DONOHUE, as President of the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO; the CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC., LOCAL 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO (hereinafter CSEA); WILLIAM COLEMAN; WILLIAM MILLER; JOHN METZGIER, and JACK WIEDEMAN, by their attorneys, Steven A. Crain and Daren J. Rylewicz (Aaron E. Kaplan, Miguel G. Ortiz and Jennifer C. Zegarelli of counsel), as and for a Complaint, respectfully set forth as follows: NATURE OF PROCEEDING 1. This is a civil rights class action, brought by Plaintiffs Danny Donohue, CSEA,

William Coleman, William Miller, John Metzgier and Jack Wiedeman on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated New York State Canal Corporation (Canal Corporation) CSEA represented employees, arising from Defendants termination of employment, demotion and forced retirement of approximately 39 CSEA represented Canal Corporation employees. This action seeks declaratory relief and damages brought pursuant to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 1983 to redress Defendants intentional violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights to freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process and equal protection of the law under the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, along with violations of Article I, 17 of the New York State Constitution. JURISDICTION 2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 (federal

question jurisdiction) and 1343(a) (civil rights jurisdiction) because this action is filed to obtain relief for the deprivation, under color of state law, of the rights of citizens of the United States secured by the United States Constitution and federal law pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. This

Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367. 3. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) because Defendants have their

principal places of business within this District and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs claims occurred within this District. 4. Plaintiffs demand a jury trial of this action. PARTIES 5. Plaintiff Danny Donohue is the duly elected Statewide President of CSEA, and

sues herein pursuant to and within the scope of his authority as an elected statewide officer of CSEA. 6. Plaintiff CSEA is a not-for-profit corporation duly organized and existing under

the laws of the State of New York, is an employee organization under the Public Employees Fair Employment Act, New York Civil Service Law Article 14, representing approximately 265,000 employees and retirees throughout the State of New York. CSEA is a duly recognized collective negotiating representative, for approximately 430 employees of Defendant Canal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the CSEA bargaining unit. 7. York. 8. In April, 2013, Plaintiff Coleman was terminated from his permanent position as a Plaintiff William Coleman (Plaintiff Coleman) is a resident of Sherrill, New

Canal Structure Operator with Defendant Canal Corporation. Within a few weeks of his termination, Defendant Canal Corporation contacted Plaintiff Coleman and invited him back to work in his previous position as Canal Structure Operator but as a seasonal employee. Plaintiff Coleman accepted such position and is working as a seasonal employee with Defendant

Canal Corporation performing the same exact duties and responsibilities as a permanent Canal Structure Operator but at a much reduced hourly rate of pay and with significantly less benefits. 9. At the time of his termination, Plaintiff Coleman was and continues to be a

member of CSEA. 10. York. 11. In April, 2013, Plaintiff Miller was terminated from his permanent position as a Plaintiff William Miller (Plaintiff Miller) is a resident of Morrisville, New

Canal Structure Operator with Defendant Canal Corporation. Within a few weeks of his termination, Defendant Canal Corporation contacted Plaintiff Miller and invited him back to work in his previous position as Canal Structure Operator but as a seasonal employee. Plaintiff Miller accepted such position and is working as a seasonal employee with Defendant Canal Corporation performing the exact same duties and responsibilities as a permanent Canal Structure Operator but at a much reduced hourly rate of pay and with significantly less benefits. 12. of CSEA. 13. 14. Plaintiff John Metzgier (Plaintiff Metzgier) is a resident of Stittville, New York. In April, 2013, Plaintiff Metzgier was terminated from his permanent position as a At the time of his termination, Plaintiff Miller was and continues to be a member

Canal Structure Operator with Defendant Canal Corporation. Within a few weeks of his termination, Defendant Canal Corporation contacted Plaintiff Metzgier and invited him back to work in his previous position as Canal Structure Operator but as a seasonal employee. Plaintiff Metzgier accepted such position and is working as a seasonal employee with Defendant Canal Corporation performing the exact same duties and responsibilities as a permanent Canal Structure Operator but at a much reduced hourly rate of pay and with significantly less benefits.

15.

At the time of his termination, Plaintiff Metzgier was and continues to be a

member of CSEA. 16. York. 17. In April, 2013, Plaintiff Wiedeman was terminated from his permanent position Plaintiff Jack Wiedeman (Plaintiff Wiedeman) is a resident of Oswego, New

as a Canal Structure Operator with Defendant Canal Corporation. Within a few weeks of his termination, Defendant Canal Corporation contacted Plaintiff Wiedeman and invited him back to work in his previous position as Canal Structure Operator but as a seasonal employee. Plaintiff Wiedeman did not accept such position and is not currently employed by Defendant Canal Corporation. 18. 19. At the time of his termination, Plaintiff Wiedeman was a member of CSEA. Defendant Thomas J. Madison, Jr. (Defendant Madison) is, upon information

and belief, a resident of the State of New York and is, upon information and belief, the Executive Director of Defendant New York State Thruway Authority and Defendant Canal Corporation. This action is brought against Defendant Madison in his individual and official capacities. 20. Defendant Carlos Millan (Defendant Millan) is, upon information and belief, a

resident of the State of New York and is, upon information and belief, the Director of Employee Relations and Employee Safety, New York State Thruway Authority and New York State Canal Corporation. This action is brought against Defendant Millan in his individual and official capacities. 21. Defendant Brian U. Stratton (Defendant Stratton) is, upon information and

belief, a resident of the State of New York and is, upon information and belief, the Director of

the New York State Canal Corporation. This action is brought against Defendant Stratton in his individual and official capacities. 22. Defendant Howard P. Milstein (Defendant Milstein) is, upon information and

belief, a resident of the State of New York and is, upon information and belief, the Chairman of the New York State Thruway/Canal Corporation Board of Directors. This action is brought against Defendant Milstein in his individual and official capacities. 23. Defendant Donna J. Luh (Defendant Luh) is, upon information and belief, a

resident of the State of New York and is, upon information and belief, the Vice-Chairman of the New York State Thruway/ Canal Corporation Board of Directors. This action is brought against Defendant Luh in her individual and official capacities. 24. Defendant E. Virgil Conway (Defendant Conway) is, upon information and

belief, a resident of the State of New York and is, upon information and belief, a Board Member of the New York State Thruway/Canal Corporation Board of Directors. This action is brought against Defendant Conway in his individual and official capacities. 25. Defendant Richard N. Simberg (Defendant Simberg) is, upon information and

belief, a resident of the State of New York and is, upon information and belief, a Board Member of the New York State Thruway/Canal Corporation Board of Directors. This action is brought against Defendant Simberg in his individual and official capacities. 26. Defendant Brandon R. Sall (Defendant Sall) is, upon information and belief, a

resident of the State of New York and is, upon information and belief, a Board Member of the New York State Thruway/Canal Corporation Board of Directors. This action is brought against Defendant Sall in his individual and official capacities.

27.

Defendant J. Donald Rice Jr. (Defendant Rice) is, upon information and belief,

a resident of the State of New York and is, upon information and belief, a Board Member of the New York State Thruway/Canal Corporation Board of Directors. This action is brought against Defendant Rice in his individual and official capacities. 28. Defendant Jose Holguin-Veras (Defendant Holguin-Veras) is, upon information

and belief, a resident of the State of New York and is, upon information and belief, a Board Member of the New York State Thruway/Canal Corporation Board of Directors. This action is brought against Defendant Holguin-Veras in his individual and official capacities. 29. Defendant Joseph Bress (Defendant Bress) is, upon information and belief, a

resident of Washington, D.C. and is, upon information and belief, the chief negotiator for the collective bargaining agreements between Defendant Canal Corporation and Plaintiff CSEA. This action is brought against Defendant Bress in his individual and official capacities. 30. Defendant New York State Thruway Authority (NYSTA) is a public authority

created under and by virtue of Title 9 of New York Public Authorities Law. 31. Defendant New York State Canal Corporation (Canal Corporation) is a

subsidiary of the NYSTA pursuant to New York Canal Law 2(21) and New York Public Authorities Law 382(1). 32. The principal place of business of the NYSTA is located at Albany, New York. 33. The principal place of business of Defendant Canal Corporation is located at

Albany, New York. 34. Defendant NYSTA is not an arm of the State and does not enjoy immunity from

suit for damages under the Eleventh Amendment. Therefore, it is subject to declaratory relief for

violations of Plaintiffs constitutional rights and is liable for attorneys fees in the same manner as a private party pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. 35. Defendant Canal Corporation is not an arm of the State and does not enjoy

immunity from suit for damages under the Eleventh Amendment. Therefore, it is subject to declaratory relief for violations of Plaintiffs constitutional rights and is liable for attorneys fees in the same manner as a private party pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. 36. Defendant Canal Corporation is empowered to operate, maintain, construct,

reconstruct, improve, develop, finance, and promote the New York State canal system. N.Y. Pub. Auth. Law 382(1). CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 37. Plaintiffs Coleman, Miller, Metzgier and Wiedeman (Named Plaintiffs) bring

this action individually and on behalf of all other similarly-situated CSEA represented employees of Defendant Canal Corporation subjected to termination, demotion or other adverse employment action as a result of Defendants conduct. The class consists of all individuals who: a. were employees of Defendant Canal Corporation on or about April 3, 2013; b. were and continue to be members of the bargaining unit represented by CSEA or were members of the bargaining unit represented by CSEA at the time of their termination in early April, 2013; and, c. were terminated from their permanent positions as part of the course of illegal conduct at issue herein and, in some situations, re-hired in the same position but as a seasonal employee earning less, forced into early retirement or who have been otherwise adversely affected by the terminations implemented by Defendants as alleged herein.

38.

The class that the Named Plaintiffs seek to represent (Affected Employees

Class) is so numerous that the joinder of all members is impracticable. Defendants have impacted approximately 39 Canal Corporation employees who were or remain members of CSEA. 39. There are questions of law or fact common to the class. Class members were all

CSEA represented employees of Defendant Canal Corporation who have been subjected to termination or other adverse action as a result of Defendants conduct. Defendants actions have been generally applicable to the class. 40. The Named Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of the class members and

the Named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. 41. The questions of law and fact common to the members of the class predominate

over any questions affecting only individual members and a class action is superior to other methods of adjudicating the controversy. The prosecution of separate actions by the individual class members would create a risk of adjudications with respect to the individual members which would be dispositive of the interests of the other members. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 42. Pursuant to New York State Civil Service Law 200, et seq., commonly referred

to as the Taylor Law, Plaintiff CSEA is a certified exclusive representative for purposes of collective negotiations and contract administration for approximately 430 Defendant Canal Corporation employees. 43. Pursuant to the Taylor Law, since approximately 1995, Defendant Canal

Corporation and Plaintiff CSEA have been parties to numerous successive collective bargaining

agreements detailing wages, hours, health insurance and other terms and conditions of employment of CSEA-represented Canal Corporation employees. 44. In 2007, Plaintiff CSEA and Defendant Canal Corporation entered into a

collective bargaining agreement with a term of July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2012 (the Agreement), which included, among other things, negotiated wages, health insurance benefits, longevity payments, increment wage increases and other terms and conditions of employment. 45. In accordance with New York State Civil Service Law 209-a.1(e) (sometimes

referred to as the Triborough Amendment), the terms and provisions of the Agreement continued after expiration of said agreement and until a new agreement is negotiated. 46. Since on or about October 11, 2012, contract negotiations have been conducted

between Plaintiff CSEA and Defendant Canal Corporation. 47. To date, no new agreement has been negotiated between Plaintiff CSEA and

Defendant Canal Corporation. 48. During one of the contract negotiation sessions held on or about December 19,

2012, Defendant NYSTA through Defendant Bress stated to Plaintiff CSEA that if Defendant NYSTA and Defendant Canal Corporation did not achieve savings of 20 million dollars quickly, then Defendant NYSTA and Defendant Canal Corporation would need to look at other options, such as layoffs and to expect that employees would be receiving letters verifying seniority in the next few weeks. 49. On or about December 28, 2012, Defendant Madison sent an agency-wide email

to all Canal Corporation CSEA negotiating unit members, which stated, among other things, that layoffs are a real possibility and that every employee of the Thruway Authority and Canal

10

Corporation would soon be receiving a letter from the Thruway Authority Personnel Bureau requesting verification of the employees employment seniority date. 50. By letter dated January 29, 2013, Defendant Madison advised all CSEA

negotiating unit employees, among other things, that Defendant NYSTA needed to implement cost savings through the collective bargaining process, and that it was now implementing a workforce reduction plan that included the elimination of 234 positions from Defendant NYSTA and Defendant Canal Corporation. 51. By letter dated March 8, 2013, Defendant Madison notified all CSEA negotiating

unit employees, among other things, that layoffs are scheduled to become effective the first week in April. The letter also specifically stated Beginning in 2011, the Authority has reached out frequently to your union representatives and urged them to partner with us to address these fiscal issues. The letter also states: If we are not able to reach an agreement by April 3rd, the layoffs will occur and we will manage any impacts to ensure safe and reliable Thruway and Canal operations. The letter closes with: I understand the impact layoffs will have on affected individuals, their families, and our entire organization and I sincerely hope we can partner with union representatives to avoid them. 52. By email dated March 20, 2013, to all CSEA negotiating unit employees,

Defendant Madison again advised that layoffs were scheduled to become effective at the close of business on April 3, 2013, and that management was continuing to meet with union representatives at the bargaining table, and that he remained hopeful that essential work force savings could be achieved through collective bargaining. 53. On or about March 27, 2013, and just seven days before the implementation of the

layoffs, Defendants NYSTA and Canal Corporation held a Board Meeting wherein Defendants

11

NYSTA and Canal Corporation were described as being in solid shape financially and doing very well this year. 54. On or about April 3, 2013, approximately 39 CSEA members of the CSEA

negotiating unit were impacted by the layoffs conducted by Defendant Canal Corporation. Impact of Layoffs on Plaintiffs 55. Those 39 CSEA members who were impacted by the layoffs conducted by

Defendant Canal Corporation included Plaintiffs Coleman, Miller, Metzgier and Wiedeman. 56. Within weeks of being laid off, the majority of laid off CSEA members were

offered the opportunity to return to their same position of employment with Defendant Canal Corporation, performing the same duties and responsibilities, but as a seasonal employee. 57. A seasonal employee is an employee who is employed in a position which is

not established on a continuous basis throughout the year. 58. At the time of the layoff, Plaintiff Coleman was earning approximately $15.02 per

hour in a permanent appointment as a Canal Structure Operator. 59. Due to the layoff, Plaintiff Coleman is now working in the same position, Canal

Structure Operator, as when he was laid off but as a seasonal employee. 60. Even though Plaintiff Coleman is now a seasonal Canal Structure Operator, his

duties and responsibilities are the same as when he was a permanent employee working as a Canal Structure Operator. 61. As a result of the layoffs, Plaintiff Coleman is now earning approximately $12.00

per hour as a Canal Structure Operator, seasonal employee.

12

62.

Due to his status as a seasonal employee, Plaintiff Coleman is not in the normal

overtime rotation as permanent employees and is not offered nearly the amount of overtime pay as permanent employees. 63. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff Coleman, as a seasonal employee, also

does not receive the same benefits regarding sick and vacation time as permanent employees in the same position and has lost longevity payments. 64. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff Colemans seasonal position as Canal

Structure Operator will end for the season on or about November 20, 2013. 65. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff Coleman may be entitled to receive

unemployment insurance benefits when his seasonal position ends through the time if and when such seasonal position re-commences in or about early April 2014. 66. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff Colemans eligibility to continue health

coverage under the New York State Health Insurance Program (NYSHIP) will be discontinued one year following his layoff. 67. At the time of the layoff, Plaintiff Miller was earning approximately $16.11 per

hour in a permanent appointment as a Canal Structure Operator. 68. Due to the layoff, Plaintiff Miller is now working in the same position, Canal

Structure Operator, as when he was laid off but as a seasonal employee. 69. Even though Plaintiff Miller is now a seasonal Canal Structure Operator, his

duties and responsibilities are the same as when he was a permanent employee working as a Canal Structure Operator. 70. As a result of the layoffs, Plaintiff Miller is now earning approximately $12.00

per hour as a Canal Structure Operator, seasonal employee.

13

71.

Due to his status as a seasonal employee, Plaintiff Miller is not in the normal

overtime rotation as permanent employees and is not offered nearly the amount of overtime pay as permanent employees. 72. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff Miller, as a seasonal employee, also does

not receive the same benefits regarding sick and vacation time as permanent employees in the same position and has lost longevity payments. 73. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff Millers seasonal position as Canal

Structure Operator will end for the season on or about November 20, 2013. 74. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff Miller may be entitled to receive

unemployment insurance benefits when his seasonal position ends through the time if and when such seasonal position re-commences in or about early April 2014. 75. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff Millers eligibility to continue health

coverage under the New York State Health Insurance Program (NYSHIP) will be discontinued one year following his layoff. 76. At the time of the layoff, Plaintiff Metzgier was earning approximately $18.33 per

hour in a permanent appointment as a Canal Structure Operator. 77. Due to the layoff, Plaintiff Metzgier is now working in the same position, Canal

Structure Operator, as when he was laid off but as a seasonal employee. 78. Even though Plaintiff Metzgier is now a seasonal Canal Structure Operator, his

duties and responsibilities are the same as when he was a permanent employee working as a Canal Structure Operator. 79. As a result of the layoffs, Plaintiff Metzgier is now earning approximately $12.00

per hour as a Canal Structure Operator, seasonal employee.

14

80.

Due to his status as a seasonal employee, Plaintiff Metzgier is not in the normal

overtime rotation as permanent employees and is not offered nearly the amount of overtime pay as permanent employees. 81. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff Metzgier also does not receive the same

benefits regarding sick and vacation time as permanent employees in the same position and has lost longevity payments. 82. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff Metzgiers seasonal position as Canal

Structure Operator will end for the season on or about November 20, 2013. 83. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff Metzgier may be entitled to receive

unemployment insurance benefits when his seasonal position ends through the time if and when such seasonal position re-commences in or about early April 2014. 84. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff Metzgiers eligibility to continue health

coverage under the New York State Health Insurance Program (NYSHIP) will be discontinued one year following his layoff. 85. At the time of the layoff, Plaintiff Wiedeman was earning approximately $22.00

per hour in a permanent appointment as a Canal Structure Operator. 86. Due to the layoff, Plaintiff Wiedeman is no longer employed by Defendant

NYSTA and Defendant Canal Corporation. 87. Plaintiff Wiedeman is currently receiving unemployment compensation at a gross,

weekly rate of approximately $405.00. 88. Upon information and belief, only unionized employees were laid off or are slated

for layoff and no encumbered non-union positions are scheduled to be abolished.

15

89.

Upon information and belief, state union members, including those represented by

Plaintiff CSEA, receive the same health insurance, retirement and leave benefits as the nonunion employees. 90. Upon information and belief, the layoffs of the Named Plaintiffs and Affected

Employees Class did not result in a significant savings to Defendant Canal Corporation. 91. Defendant Madisons communications to Plaintiff CSEA represented employees

were sent for the purpose of coercing CSEA unit employees with the threat of layoff, and to persuade CSEA negotiators to succumb to Defendant NYSTAs and Defendant Canal Corporations demands. 92. Defendant Madisons letters and emails in effect informs unionized Defendant

Canal Corporation employees, including those represented by CSEA, that because they exercised their legal, associational and contractual right to negotiate, they are being singled out among Defendant Canal Corporation workers for significant layoffs. 93. Therefore, CSEA Unit employees fundamental constitutional rights were

violated when Defendants intentionally targeted them for layoffs when Plaintiff CSEA refused to agree to certain concessions sought by Defendants during contract negotiations. AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 94. herein. 95. At all times mentioned herein, CSEA is a duly recognized and certified Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the previous allegations as if fully set forth

negotiating representative for a negotiating unit of employees of Defendant Canal Corporation. 96. At all times mentioned herein, CSEA has been a party to collective bargaining

agreements negotiated and entered into with Defendant Canal Corporation.

16

97.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects Plaintiffs

constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association free from reprisal. 98. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution makes the First

Amendment applicable to the states, including New York. 99. Pursuant to Article 14 of the New York State Civil Service Law (New Yorks

Public Employees Fair Employment Act, commonly referred to as the Taylor Law), Plaintiff CSEA is not required to grant any concessions of their members rights under their collective bargaining agreements. 100. In order to coerce Plaintiff CSEA into giving up their members Taylor Law

rights to negotiate, Defendants threatened that if Plaintiff CSEA did not agree to the concessions demanded, Defendants would terminate the employment of CSEA represented Canal Corporation workers. 101. When Plaintiff CSEA declined to grant the contract concessions demanded by

Defendants, Defendants carried out their threats and announced and terminated approximately 39 union Canal Corporation employees. Those terminations took effect in early April, 2013 and resulted in union employees being terminated, bumped, demoted and adversely affected. 102. Although the Canal Corporation work force has both union and non-union

members, Defendants intentionally directed their demands for concessions, and their corresponding threats of termination if their concessions were not granted, solely to union employees. 103. Although Defendant Canal Corporation has both union and non-union members,

Defendants intentionally singled out union members for termination.

17

104.

The terminations ordered by Defendants have been intentionally directed against

Canal Corporation union members because of their union membership. 105. Defendants action in terminating various Canal Structure Operator positions

within Defendant Canal Corporation effectively deprived the Named Plaintiffs and the Affected Employees Class of their right to associate with their union in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 106. Defendants violated Plaintiffs right to free speech, including the right to

associate, while acting under color of law of the State of New York. 107. Defendants Madison, Millan, Stratton, Milstein, Luh, Conway, Simberg, Sall,

Rice, Holguin-Veras and Bress have been the decision-makers for the Defendant NYSTA and Defendant Canal Corporation with respect to the collective bargaining agreement demands involving Defendant Canal Corporation and Plaintiff CSEA and employee terminations. 108. Defendants Madison, Millan, Stratton, Milstein, Luh, Conway, Simberg, Sall,

Rice, Holguin-Veras and Bress are also responsible for the Canal Corporations work force. 109. Upon information and belief, Defendant Bress is the representative for negotiating

collective bargaining agreements between Defendant NYSTA and Defendant Canal Corporation and Plaintiff CSEA. 110. Defendants conduct was intended to interfere with the Named Plaintiffs and

Affected Employees Class exercise of their rights of freedom of association and freedom of speech, as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 111. Defendants conduct violated the rights of the Named Plaintiffs and Affected

Employees Class to seek union representation, to join their respective unions and to participate in

18

union activities, without reprisal, as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association. 112. Defendants conduct has caused impermissible penalty to the Named Plaintiffs

and the Affected Employees Class for exercising their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to seek union representation and to join, support and participate in a union. 113. Defendants conduct was taken under color of state law and deprived the Named

Plaintiffs and the Affected Employees Class of their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association, as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983. 114. Defendants intended to violate the Named Plaintiffs and the Affected Employees

Class constitutional rights, knew their actions violated the Named Plaintiffs and the Affected Employees Class constitutional rights and/or acted with reckless disregard for whether their actions violated the Named Plaintiffs and the Affected Employees Class. 115. The Named Plaintiffs and the Affected Employees Class have suffered and will in

the future suffer economic loss as a result of Defendants impermissible conduct. 116. The Named Plaintiffs and the Affected Employees Class have suffered and will in

the future suffer emotional distress as a result of Defendants impermissible conduct. 117. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, the Named Plaintiffs and the Affected Employees

Class are entitled to reinstatement to their permanent positions. 118. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, Defendants, in their individual capacities, are jointly

and severally liable to the Named Plaintiffs and the Affected Employees Class for damages representing any financial losses they may suffer from being wrongfully terminated, including

19

but not limited to back pay, as well as compensatory damages for the emotional harm they have suffered in being denied the right to associate. 119. Since Defendants acted intentionally and in wanton and reckless disregard of the

Named Plaintiffs and the Affected Employees Class constitutional rights, the Named Plaintiffs and the Affected Employees Class are further entitled to punitive damages against Defendants, jointly and severally. 120. Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable attorneys fees, costs and disbursements

incurred in the prosecution of this action. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 121. herein. 122. Defendants violated the Named Plaintiffs and the Affected Employees Class Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth

right of association by treating them differently than other similarly situated Canal Corporation public employees. 123. Defendants decision to terminate only employees who are members of unions

was arbitrary, irrational and/or undertaken in violation of the Constitution. 124. There was no basis for the decision to target Named Plaintiffs and the Affected

Employees Class for termination from other similarly situated Canal Corporation employees except for union status. 125. Defendants acted in their official capacities in ordering the terminations of the

Named Plaintiffs and the Affected Employees Class for arbitrary, irrational and/or constitutionally impermissible reasons.

20

126.

The actions of Defendants were taken under color of state law and deprived the

Named Plaintiffs and the Affected Employees Class of their rights to substantive due process and equal protection under the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983. 127. The Named Plaintiffs and the Affected Employees Class have suffered and will in

the future suffer irreparable harm as a result of Defendants unlawful conduct. 128. Defendants actions were taken for an improper purpose and, being without a

rational basis, violated the Named Plaintiffs and the Affected Employees Class right to equal protection of the laws and substantive due process of law guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment. AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 129. herein. 130. In 2008, Plaintiff CSEA entered into a collective bargaining agreement Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth

(Agreement) on behalf of its members with Defendant Canal Corporation which covered various terms of employment. 131. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants have been aware that the Agreement is

a binding contractual obligation of the State of New York. 132. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants have been aware that the members of

Plaintiff CSEA have rights pursuant to the Agreement. 133. Upon information and belief, from on or about December 2012 and continuing to

the present time, Defendants have demanded that Plaintiff CSEA agree to certain concessions

21

under the Agreement and threatened to terminate the employment of Plaintiff CSEAs members if certain rights were not relinquished. 134. Due to Plaintiff CSEAs refusal to relinquish members rights under the

Agreement, Defendants have directed the terminations of CSEA represented Canal Corporation employees. The Named Plaintiffs and the Affected Employees Class have been terminated, and/or have been bumped, demoted or otherwise have suffered adverse employment action. 135. Defendants have wrongfully penalized the Named Plaintiffs and the Affected

Employees Class by depriving them of their right to continued public employment and/or to benefits arising out of their public employment as set forth under the Agreement and as protected by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and by the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution. 136. The official actions of Defendants, in their official capacities, and by intentionally

penalizing and intentionally seeking to penalize the Named Plaintiffs and the Affected Employees Class for asserting their rights under the Agreement, as guaranteed by the Contract Clause and by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, have been taken under color of state law and impair the contractual rights of Plaintiff CSEA and its members including the rights of the Named Plaintiffs and the Affected Employees Class under the Contract Clause and to substantive due process and equal protection of the law guaranteed by the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983. 137. The Named Plaintiffs and the Affected Employees Class have suffered and will in

the future suffer irreparable harm as a result of Defendants conduct.

22

AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 138. herein. 139. Defendants have ordered terminations of the Named Plaintiffs and the Affected Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth

Employees Class and have subjected the Named Plaintiffs and the Affected Employees Class to adverse employment action. 140. Since Defendants have failed to set forth a rational basis for their actions, were

acting without foundation under New York State law and in violation of the right to organize and to bargain collectively as set forth under Article I, 17 of the New York State Constitution, Plaintiffs are entitled to an order declaring their termination of employment by Defendants as unlawful. 141. The Named Plaintiffs and the Affected Employees Class have suffered and will in

the future suffer irreparable harm as a result of Defendants conduct. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants as follows: A. That the Court certify the Named Plaintiffs claims in this action as a class action on behalf of the Named Plaintiffs and all individuals similarly-situated; B. On Count I and II, declaring and adjudging that Defendants violated Plaintiffs constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association and equal protection of laws; C. On Count III, declaring and adjudging that Defendants violated the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution;

23

D. On Count IV, declaring and adjudging that Defendants violated Plaintiffs right to organize and to bargain collectively under Article I, 17 of the New York State Constitution; E. On Counts I, II, III and IV against Defendants for reinstatement of the Named Plaintiffs and Affected Employees Class to their previous positions; F. On Counts I, II, III and IV against Defendants for all economic and emotional damages suffered by the Named Plaintiffs and the Affected Employees Class, as well as punitive damages for violating the Named Plaintiffs and the Affected Employees Class constitutional rights; G. Against all Defendants for the attorneys fees, costs and disbursements incurred in the prosecution of this action; and, H. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just, proper and equitable. Dated: August 2, 2013 Albany, New York

Respectfully submitted, STEVEN A. CRAIN and DAREN J. RYLEWICZ Attorneys for Plaintiffs s/ Aaron E. Kaplan ________________________________________ Aaron E. Kaplan (Bar Roll #517548), of counsel Miguel G. Ortiz (Bar Roll #102310), of counsel Jennifer C. Zegarelli (Bar Roll #512549), of counsel Civil Service Employees Association, Inc. Box 7125, Capitol Station 143 Washington Avenue Albany, New York 12224 Tel. (518) 257-1443 aaron.kaplan@cseainc.org mike.ortiz@cseainc.org jennifer.zegarelli@cseainc.org

PL/13-0796/JCZ/ks/Complaint/#304223

24