16-05-2025
Superior Court judge denies city's request to dismiss portion of police officers wage theft lawsuit
SPRINGFIELD — A Superior Court judge has ruled against the city after denying its request to dismiss a complaint filed by 19 current Westfield Police Department officers alleging they should have been paid 'regular wages' when attending the police academy, according to court documents.
'After a hearing and consideration of the parties' submissions, the court denies defendant's motion to dismiss,' wrote Superior Court Judge Deepika B. Shulka when handing down his decision Wednesday.
Last September, Springfield-based attorney Jeffrey Morneau with Connor & Morneau representing the officers of the department filed a lawsuit against the city with three separate complaints.
Count I alleged that officers attending the police academy should have been paid the same wages as a regular officer.
Count II was that the city didn't pay the officers while they were attending the academy regular wages earned within seven days of the end of the pay period. Essentially, the second complaint is asking the court to find that the officers attending the academy should have been paid at least $21 an hour instead of $19 per hour within seven days of leaving the academy.
And in Count III the officers alleged the city was obligated to pay them because 'valuable services were provided to the city' by the officers — it is called a claim for quantum meruit.
In the court's decision to dismiss the first complaint of the lawsuit, the judge referred to case law and cited a 2008 decision and that she determined the officers had 'pleaded factual allegations plausibly suggesting (not merely consistent with) an entitlement' for relief. In this case, it would be back pay times three.
The city had argued in its request for dismissal that the court shouldn't accept 'legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations' and that the officers used the collective bargaining agreement between the city and Westfield Police Officers Coalition as a justification for relief.
While the city initially requested the court dismiss the second complaint, during a court hearing between the city and officers, according to the court documents, the officers agreed to seek payment for wages only while they were working in the academy, which was agreed to by the city.
'Therefore, the court leaves Count II undisturbed as pled,' Shulka wrote.
For Count III, the city argued in its answer to the original complaint that the officers were bound to the CBA, and they are 'not entitled to recovery … where a valid contract that defines the obligations of the parties.'
In the judge's decision, she noted the language of the CBA is 'not as clear as the city suggests.'
She said that while the words 'ACADEMY RATE $19.00' does appear in the agreement, there is also language in the agreement that a student officer is a full-time police academy student; they are not covered by the contract.'
The court also noted that the agreement between the city and the union specifically excludes student officers among the group of officers for whom 'the Union [is] the sole and exclusive bargaining agent with respect to wages, hours, and other conditions.'
The judge wrote that the language of the CBA was 'ambiguous at best as to whether the student officers are bound by the CBA, what rights the student officers had to challenge it, and whether the CBA prescribed an hourly pay rate for student officers.'
Based on that, the court also denied the city's request to dismiss Count III.
Morneau said Wednesday the next phase of the lawsuit includes the city answering the court's decision, discovery begins, and depositions being taken.
Morneau is also seeking the lawsuit be deemed a class action because of the potential the lawsuit will include at least 50 of the department's officers.
'The class allegations are brought on behalf of [the] plaintiff and all other members of the Westfield Police Officers Coalition who worked for [the city] … absent a class action, the class will continue to suffer injury, thereby allowing these alleged violations of law to proceed without remedy and allowing [the city] to retain the proceeds of its ill-gotten gains,' the lawsuit reads.
The city of Westfield's Law Department declined to comment on the decision.
Read the original article on MassLive.
