BACKGROUND AND FACTUAL RECITALS. 1. This civil action was initiated in February 2003, pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. §1983, by a group of state employee unions (collectively known as the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition or "SEBAC") that represented approximately 40,000 Connecticut state employees. In addition to SEBAC, the Plaintiffs include 12 of its 13 constituent labor unions and several individual members of the union.
2. The Defendants are Xxxx X. Xxxxxxx, former Governor of the State of Connecticut, and Xxxx X. Xxxx, former Secretary of Connecticut's Office of Policy and Management. They are sued in both their official and individual capacities.
3. On May 28, 2003, the Plaintiffs filed a ten-count Amended Complaint (doc. 29), alleging, in essence, that the Defendants intentionally violated their 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 U.S. Constitution by ordering the terminations of over 3,000 union members in retaliation for the unions' refusal to forego certain statutorily protected contract rights. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief and money damages.
4. The Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint on several grounds, including legislative immunity and Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. The District Court held that the Plaintiffs' claim for money damages, but not injunctive relief, were barred by sovereign immunity and that further discovery was required on the issue of whether legislative immunity would bar the claims for injunctive relief.
5. The Defendants filed an interlocutory appeal to the Second Circuit, which held that:
(1) Legislative immunity does not apply exclusively to bar claims for damages, but may also apply to bar claims for injunctive relief brought against state officials in their official capacities.
(2) In determining whether the instant claims for injunctive relief are barred by legislative immunity, it is necessary to determine
(a) whether defendants' actions were "substantively" and "procedurally" legislative; and
(b) whether the specific relief sought would enjoin defendants in their performance of legislative functions.
(3) In the circumstances presented, discovery is necessary to assess whether defendants are entitled to legislative immunity with respect to plaintiffs' claims for reinstatement to their previous positions.
(4) As a matter of law, defendants are not en...
