Lillian Roberts Dir. of Dist. Council 37, Afscme ex rel. Situated v. Cuomo (339 F. Supp. 3d 36, 2018)

Citations

339 F. Supp. 3d 36

Full opinion text

Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge:

I. INTRODUCTION

In a complaint dated January 10, 2012, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants unilaterally increased the percentage of contributions that Plaintiffs, active and retired employees, are required to pay for health insurance benefits in retirement and, thereby, violated the Contracts and Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution, impaired Plaintiffs' contractual rights under the terms of their Collective Bargaining Agreement, and violated state law. See Dkt. No. 1.

Currently before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

II. BACKGROUND

A. The Parties

Plaintiff Lillian Roberts was at the relevant times the Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer of Plaintiff District Council 37, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO ("DC 37"). See Dkt. No. 87 at ¶ 1. Plaintiff DC 37 is a not-for-profit corporation and is an employee organization that is the collective bargaining representative for the Rent Regulation Services Unit ("RRSU") and Court Unit employees (the "Court Unit"), who receive benefits through the New York State Health Insurance Program ("NYSHIP"). See id. at ¶ 2. Plaintiff Dennis Ifill was, at the time the complaint was filed, the President of Local 1359 and an active New York State employee. See id. at ¶ 3. Plaintiff Clifford Koppelman was, at the time of the filing of the complaint, the President of Local 1070, the Court, County and Department of Probation Employees Unit. See id. at ¶ 4. Plaintiffs Mildred Brown and Maurice Bouyea were, at the time the complaint was filed, retired former New York State Employees and members of the RRSU unit receiving dependent health insurance benefits through NYSHIP. See id. at ¶ 5. Plaintiffs Shanomae Wiltshire, Norma Galloway, and Charmaine Hardaway were, at the time the complaint was filed, retired former New York State employees and members of the RRSU unit receiving individual health insurance benefits through NYSHIP. See id. at ¶ 6. Plaintiff Steven Schwartz was, at the time the complaint was filed, a retired former New York State employee and member of the Court Unit receiving individual health insurance benefits through NYSHIP. See id. at ¶ 7.

Defendant Andrew M. Cuomo is the Governor of the State of New York. See id. at ¶ 9. Defendant Patricia A. Hite was, in 2011, Acting Commissioner of the New York State Department of Civil Service. See id. at ¶ 10. Defendants Caroline W. Ahl and J. Dennis Hanrahan were, in 2011, the members of the Civil Service Commission. See id. at ¶ 11. Defendant Robert Megna was, in 2011, the Director of the New York State Division of the Budget. See id. at ¶ 12. Defendant Thomas P. DiNapoli is the Comptroller of the State of New York. See id. at ¶ 13.

B. Collective Bargaining Agreement in Effect in 2011 Between New York and RRSU

During 2011, the State of New York and the RRSU were parties to a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") for the period April 2, 2007, through April 1, 2011 (the "2007-11 RRSU CBA").See Dkt. No. 83-2 at ¶ 14. Section 9.1 of the 2007-11 RRSU CBA provided that "[t]he State shall continue to provide all the forms and extent of coverage as defined by the contracts in force on April 1, 2007 with the State's health insurance carriers unless specifically modified or replaced pursuant to this Agreement." Id. at ¶ 15. Section 9.4 of the 2007-11 RRSU CBA provided: "The State agrees to pay 90 percent of the cost of individual coverage and 75 percent of the cost of dependent coverage toward the hospital/medical/mental health and substance abuse/prescription drug components provided under the Empire Plan." Id. at ¶ 18. Additionally, Section 9.2(i) of the 2007-11 RRSU CBA provided that "[t]he unremarried spouse or domestic partner who has not acquired another domestic partner and otherwise eligible dependent children of an employee, who retires after April 1, 1979, with ten (10), or more years of active State service and subsequently dies, shall be permitted to continue coverage in the health insurance program with payment at the same contribution rates as required of active employees for the same coverage." Id. at ¶ 19.

C. CBAs in Effect 1982-2011 Between New York and RRSU

From 1982 to 2011, the various collective bargaining agreements between the State and RRSU contained substantially the same provisions as discussed above. See Dkt. No. 83-2 at ¶¶ 20-36.

D. CBAs Between the State and the Court Unit

During 2011, the State of New York and the Court Unit were parties to a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") for the period April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2011 (the "2007-11 Court Unit CBA"). See Dkt. No. 83-2 at ¶ 37. Section 8.1 of the 2007-11 Court Unit CBA provided: "The State shall continue to provide health and prescription drug benefits administered by the Department of Civil Service. Employees enrolled in such plans shall receive health and prescription drug benefits to the same extent, at the same contribution level and in the same form and with the same co-payment structure that applies to the majority of represented Executive Branch employees covered by such plans." Id. at ¶ 38. All of the Court Unit CBAs from 1982 through 2011 contained this language. See id. at ¶ 39.

E. CBAs Between the State and CSEA and the State and PEF in 2011

On June 22, 2011, the Governor issued a press release announcing that the State had reached a five-year labor agreement with the Civil Service Employees Association ("CSEA"). See Dkt. No. 83-2 at ¶ 40. The press release announced a two percent increase in the premium contribution rate for Grade 9 employees and below, and a six percent increase for Grade 10 and above. See id.

The 2011-16 CBA between CSEA and the State was signed on August 15, 2011, and covered the periods between April 2, 2011 and April 1, 2016. See id. at ¶ 41. Section 9.14 of the 2011-16 CSEA CBA provides as follows:

The State agrees to pay 90 percent of the cost of individual coverage and 75 percent of the cost of dependent coverage toward the hospital/medical/mental health and substance abuse components provided under the Empire Plan. Effective October 1, 2011 for employees in a title Salary Grade 9 or below, the State agrees to pay 88 percent of the cost of individual coverage and 73 percent of the cost of dependent coverage toward the hospital/medical/mental health and substance abuse components provided under the Empire Plan. Effective October 1, 2011 for employees in a title Salary Grade 10 and above or an employee equated to a position title Salary Grade 10 and above the State agrees to pay 84 percent of the cost of individual coverage and 69 percent of the cost of dependent coverage toward the hospital/medical/mental health and substance abuse components provided under the Empire Plan.

Id.

Article 50 of the 2011-16 CSEA CBA, entitled "Conclusion of Collective Negotiations," provided:

This Agreement is the entire agreement between the State and CSEA, terminates all prior agreements and understandings and concludes all collective negotiations during its term. During the term of this Agreement, neither party will unilaterally seek to modify its terms through legislation or other means. The parties agree to support jointly any legislation or administrative action necessary to implement the provisions of this Agreement. The parties acknowledge that, except as otherwise expressly provided herein, they have fully negotiated with respect to the terms and conditions of employment and have settled them for the term of this Agreement in accordance with the provisions thereof.

Id. at ¶ 42.

On November 3, 2011, PEF announced that its members ratified a four-year agreement with the State. See id. at ¶ 43. The term of that agreement was April 2, 2011 through April 1, 2015. See id.

Section 9.2(h) of the 2011-15 PEF CBA states as follows:

The State agrees to pay 90 percent of the cost of the individual coverage and 75 percent of the cost of dependent coverage, including prescription drug coverage, provided under the Empire Plan. Effective October 1, 2011 for employees in a title Salary Grade 9 or below (or an employee equated to a position title Salary Grade 9 or below), the State agrees to pay 88 percent of the cost of individual coverage and 73 percent of the cost of dependent coverage. Effective October 1, 2011 for employees in a title Salary Grade 10 and above (or an employee equated to a position title Salary Grade 10 and above) the State agrees to pay 84 percent of the cost of individual coverage and 69 percent of the cost of dependent coverage.

Id. at ¶ 44.

The members of the CSEA and PEF constitute the majority of represented executive branch employees. See id. at ¶ 45.

F. Legislation, Administrative Measures, and Fiscal Crisis

The Court will not repeat all of the facts relating to the 1983 and 2011 Legislation, the fiscal crisis facing the State in 2010 and 2011, or the parties' arguments relating to Defendant Hite acting as the head of the Department of Civil Service. Rather, the Court refers the parties to the discussion set forth in the accompanying Memorandum-Decision and Order from the Lead Case.

G. The Complaint and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment

In their first cause of action, Plaintiffs allege that the increase in the percentage of the health insurance premium contribution paid by retirees violated the Contracts Clause of Article I, § 10 of the United States Constitution. Defendants contend that the Court should dismiss this cause of action because the collective bargaining agreements do not establish a contractual right to perpetually fixed health insurance premium contribution rates. Further, Defendants argue that, even if Plaintiffs do have a vested right to a perpetually fixed premium contribution rate, they failed to demonstrate a substantial impairment of that right. Moreover, Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment on this claim because the law at issue served a legitimate public purpose and the means chosen to accomplish that purpose were reasonable and necessary.

The second cause of action alleges that the increase in the percentage of the health insurance premium contribution paid by retirees breached Plaintiffs' contractual rights under the 2007-11 CBAs. Defendants contend that the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim since there is no viable federal claim and that this claim should otherwise be dismissed because it lacks merit.

The third cause of action alleges that the retirees' premium contribution increase violated Plaintiffs' right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiffs do not have a constitutionally protected property right in perpetually fixed premium contribution rates. Additionally, Defendants contend that, even if Plaintiffs had a property interest, the claim still fails because they had an adequate state-court remedy of which they failed to avail themselves.

The fourth cause of action alleges that Defendants' increase in retiree health insurance contribution rates was "arbitrary and capricious, was contrary to law, including but not limited to the provisions of Civil Service Law § 167(1)(a) and the amended Civil Service Law § 167(8), and was an abuse of discretion." Defendants contend that this cause of action appears to be a claim brought pursuant to Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, which was previously dismissed. See Dkt. No. 83-1 at 9 (citing Dkt. No. 19 at 18-21).

The fifth cause of action alleges a due process violation under Article I, § 6 of the New York State Constitution. Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment as to this claim because the State constitution does not provide for such a cause of action when relief is available under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The sixth cause of action alleges that Defendants Hite and Megna violated Article III, § 1 of the State Constitution by attempting to serve in a legislative role. Defendants argue that the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim which, in any event, has no merit because Defendants Hite and Megna acted in accordance with the express terms of Civil Service Law § 167(8).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of review

A court may grant a motion for summary judgment only if it determines that there is no genuine issue of material fact to be tried and that the facts as to which there is no such issue warrant judgment for the movant as a matter of law. See Chambers v. TRM Copy Ctrs. Corp. , 43 F.3d 29, 36 (2d Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). When analyzing a summary judgment motion, the court "cannot try issues of fact; it can only determine whether there are issues to be tried." Id. at 36-37 (quotation and other citation omitted). Moreover, it is well-settled that a party opposing a motion for summary judgment may not simply rely on the assertions in its pleading. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), (e) ).

In assessing the record to determine whether any such issues of material fact exist, the court is required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. See Chambers , 43 F.3d at 36 (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ) (other citations omitted). Where the non-movant either does not respond to the motion or fails to dispute the movant's statement of material facts, the court must be satisfied that the citations to evidence in the record support the movant's assertions. See Giannullo v. City of New York , 322 F.3d 139, 143 n.5 (2d Cir. 2003) (holding that not verifying in the record the assertions in the motion for summary judgment "would derogate the truth-finding functions of the judicial process by substituting convenience for facts").

B. Plaintiffs' Claims

The Court will not restate here all of the relevant law or reasons why Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted as to Plaintiffs' ten named causes of action. Rather, the Court directs the parties to the discussion in the Lead Case, which addresses each of the raised arguments. See Donohue v. Cuomo , No. 1:11-cv-1530, Dkt. No. 102. The Court will only briefly address arguments raised by Plaintiffs that are distinct from those addressed in the Lead Case.

Initially, Plaintiffs argue that the Court should exclude the declarations of Dominic Colafati and Darryl Decker due to Defendants' failure to disclose them as witnesses. See Dkt. No. 87-1 at 23-29. As discussed in detail in the Lead Case, Defendants' failure to disclose these witnesses did not result in any prejudice and Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the Court should grant such extraordinary relief.

As discussed in detail in the Lead Case, ordinary principles of contract interpretation require the Court to conclude that none of the CBAs at issue guaranteed a perpetually fixed premium contribution rate into retirement. See M & G Polymers USA, LLC v. Hobert Freel Tackett , --- U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 926, 937, 190 L.Ed.2d 809 (2015) (holding that, while a CBA may explicitly provide that certain terms continue after the agreement's expiration, when a contract fails to address the duration of retiree benefits, "a court may not infer that the parties intended those benefits to vest for life"). While the CBAs at issue all provide that retirees have the right to continue receiving health insurance through the NYSHIP, they are all silent as to the premium contribution rate to be paid by retirees. See Serafino v. City of Hamtramck , 707 Fed. Appx. 345, 352-53 (6th Cir. 2017) ("Looking to the four corners of the agreements, there is no indication that the City intended to provide any healthcare benefit to retirees for life, let alone a right to deductible-free, low-co-pay, forever-unalterable healthcare insurance") (emphasis in original). This conclusion is further supported by the legislation passed in 1983 providing that the State would continue to pay the full premium for pre-January 1, 1983 retirees. If retirees had a contractually vested perpetual right to the same contribution rates in effect at the time of their retirement, there would have been no need for an affirmative legislative carve-out specifically applicable to them. Finally, as set forth in the Lead Case, the undisputed facts establish that, even if Plaintiffs had a vested right to a perpetual fixed contribution rate, the small increase to the contribution rate was not a substantial impairment and the increase was reasonable and necessary in furtherance of an important government interest. See Donohue v. Cuomo , No. 1:11-cv-1530, Dkt. No. 102 at 26-32.

Plaintiffs' breach of contract cause of action must also be dismissed. Plaintiffs point to no contractual provision that was breached. The provisions regarding health insurance premiums do not extend beyond the life of the CBA and do not create a vested right to perpetually fixed premium contributions. See Gallo , 813 F.3d at 268.

As to Plaintiffs' due process claims, the undisputed facts demonstrate that neither the CBAs nor Civil Service Law § 167 created a property interest in fixed premium contribution rates in retirement. See Costello v. Town of Fairfield , 811 F.2d 782, 784 (2d Cir. 1987) ; Pineman v. Fallon , 662 F.Supp. 1311, 1318 (D. Conn. 1987) ("[G]enerally courts have sought to avoid interpreting statutory benefit programs as waiving the exercise of sovereign power to amend the statute in the future"). Nothing prevented New York from amending Section 167(8) and extending the premium shifts negotiated in 2011 to unrepresented employees and retirees. Further, Plaintiffs failed to address Defendants' argument that the due process cause of action is subject to dismissal because of the availability of a post-deprivation Article 78 proceeding. See Campo v. N.Y.C. Emps. Ret. Sys. , 843 F.2d 96, 102 (2d Cir. 1988) ; Minima v. N.Y.C. Emps. Ret. Sys. , No. 11-cv-2191, 2012 WL 4049822, *6 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2012). Finally, contrary to Plaintiffs' argument, retiree premium contributions are not a form of deferred compensation. See M & G Polymers USA LLC , 135 S.Ct. at 936 ("Retiree benefits are not a form of deferred compensation").

Even assuming that Plaintiffs' ultra vires causes of action were not previously dismissed by the Court and are not claims brought pursuant to Article 78 over which the Court would not have subject matter jurisdiction, the claims are still subject to dismissal. As set forth more fully in the Lead Case and Spence v. Cuomo , No. 1:11-cv-1533, Dkt. No. 109 at 23-24 (N.D.N.Y.), Defendants Hite and Megna acted in accordance within their authority as provided by Civil Service Law § 167(8).

Finally, as to Plaintiffs' claim that Defendants Hite and Megna violated Article III, § 1 of the New York State Constitution, their arguments are without merit. As discussed in the Lead Case, Defendants Hite and Megna were authorized, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 167(8), to apply the premium shift to retirees, "[n]otwithstanding any inconsistent provision of law." Donohue v. Cuomo , No. 1:11-cv-1530, Dkt. No. 102 at 41-45. Defendants Hite and Megna acted consistent with this authority, granted them by the Legislature, "to fill in the interstices in the legislative product by prescribing rules and regulations consistent with the enabling legislation." Med. Soc'y v. Serio , 100 N.Y.2d 854, 865, 768 N.Y.S.2d 423, 800 N.E.2d 728 (2003).

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

IV. CONCLUSION

After carefully reviewing the entire record in this matter, the parties' submissions and the applicable law, and for the above-stated reasons, the Court hereby

ORDERS Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 83) is GRANTED ; and the Court further

ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in Defendants' favor and close this case; and the Court further

ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall attach a copy of the decision in the Lead Case (Donohue v. Cuomo , No. 1:11-cv-1530, Dkt. No. 102) to this Memorandum-Decision and Order; and the Court further

ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order on the parties in accordance in the Local Rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Attachment

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, and CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC., LOCAL 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, and MILO BARLOW, THOMAS JEFFERSON, CORNELIUS KENNEDY, JUDY RICHARDS, and HENRY WAGONER, on behalf of themselves and certain other RETIREES of the STATE OF NEW YORK formerly in the CSEA BARGAINING UNITS, Plaintiffs,

vs.

THE STATE OF NEW YORK, ANDREW M. CUOMO, as Governor of the State of New York, NEW YORK STATE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT, PATRICIA A. HITE as Acting Commissioner, New York State Civil Service Department, NEW YORK STATE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, CAROLINE W. AHL and J. DENNIS HANRAHAN, as Commissioners of the New York State Civil Service Commission, ROBERT L. MEGNA, as Director of the New York State Division of the Budget, THOMAS P. DiNAPOLI as Comptroller of the State of New York, NEW YORK STATE AND LOCAL RETIREMENT SYSTEM; JONATHAN LIPPMAN as Chief Judge of the New York State Unified Court System, and the NEW YORK STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM, Defendants.

1:11-CV-1530 (MAD/CFH)

APPEARANCES:

CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC.

143 Washington Avenue

P.O. Box 7125, Capitol Station

Albany, New York 12224

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

OF COUNSEL:

DAREN J. RYLEWICZ, ESQ.

ERIC E. WILKE, ESQ.

JENNIFER C. ZEGARELLI, ESQ.

OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL

The Capitol

Albany, New York 12224

Attorneys for Defendants

HELENA LYNCH, AAG

RICHARD LOMBARDO, AAG

Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge:

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

In their second amended complaint dated July 29, 2014, Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and money damages, to redress Defendants' alleged deprivation of Plaintiffs' rights secured pursuant to the Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Article I, § 6 of the New York State Constitution, and for breach of contract, and violation of New York State Civil Service Law § 167, resulting from Defendants' unilateral action effective October 1, 2011, increasing the contribution rates that Plaintiffs pay for their retiree health insurance. See Dkt. No. 55 at ¶ 1. Plaintiffs further seek an order declaring Chapter 491 of the Laws of 2011, amending Civil Service Law § 167(8), unconstitutional, as applied, and enjoining Defendants' implementation thereof, to the extent that said law and any regulations adopted thereunder impermissibly impair the obligation of the contract between the State and individual Plaintiffs, and the class they represent, by increasing the contribution rates that such retirees are required to pay for health insurance benefits in retirement. See id. at ¶ 2.

Currently before the Court are the parties' cross motions for summary judgment. See Dkt. Nos. 93 & 98.

II. BACKGROUND

A. The Parties

Plaintiff Danny Donohue is the statewide president of the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc. ("CSEA"). See Dkt. No. 98 at ¶ 1. Plaintiff CSEA is the collective negotiating representative for New York State employees in the Administrative Service Unit ("ASU"), Institutional Services Unit ("ISU"), Operational Services Unit ("OSU"), and Division of Military and Naval Affairs Unit ("DMNA"), as well as one unit of employees of the New York State Unified Court System. See id. at ¶ 2. Plaintiff Milo Barlow is a retired former member of the OSU and is receiving individual health insurance coverage. See id. at ¶ 3. Plaintiff Thomas Jefferson is a retired former employee of the Unified Court System who receives dependent coverage. See id. at ¶ 4. Plaintiff Cornelius Kennedy is a retired former member of the DMNA unit and receives dependent health insurance coverage. See id. at ¶ 5. Plaintiff Judy Richards is a retired former ASU member and receives dependent health insurance benefits. See id. at ¶ 6. Plaintiff Henry Wagoner is a retired former member of the ASU unit and receives individual health insurance benefits. See id. at ¶ 7.

Defendant Andrew Cuomo is Governor of the State of New York. See id. at ¶ 8. Defendant Patricia A. Hite was, in 2011, Acting Commissioner of the New York State Department of Civil Service. See id. at ¶ 9. Defendants Caroline W. Ahl and Dennis Hanrahan were, in 2011, the members of the Civil Service Commission. See id. at ¶ 10. Defendant Robert Megna was, in 2011, the Director of the New York State Division of Budget. See id. at ¶ 11. Defendant Thomas P. DiNapoli is the Comptroller of the State of New York. See id. at ¶ 12. Finally, Defendant Jonathan Lippman was at the relevant time the Chief Judge of the Unified Court System. See id. at ¶ 13.

B. Collective Bargaining Agreement Negotiated Between the State and CSEA in 2011

On June 22, 2011, the Governor issued a press release announcing that the State had reached a five-year labor agreement (the "2011-16 CBA") with the CSEA. See Dkt. No. 98 at ¶ 14. The press release announced a two percent increase in the premium contribution rate for Grade 9 employees and below, and a six percent increase for Grade 10 and above. See id.

The 2011-16 CBA between CSEA and the State was signed on August 15, 2011, and covered the periods between April 2, 2011 and April 1, 2016. See id. at ¶ 15. Section 9.14 of the 2011-16 CBA provides as follows:

Id. at ¶ 16. Section 9.1(a) of the 2011-16 CBA further states that "[t]he State shall continue to provide all the forms and extent of coverage as defined by the contracts in force on March 31, 2011 with the State's health insurance carriers unless specifically modified by this Agreement." Id. at ¶ 17. The parties agree that the "contracts in force on March 31, 2011 with the State's health insurance carriers" refers to the contracts between the State and the health and dental insurance carriers. See id. at ¶ 18. According to Defendants, none of the contracts between the State and any insurance carriers, including those in force on March 31, 2011, contained any provisions setting forth the respective premium contribution rates for the State and its employees. See Dkt. No. 93-2 at ¶ 19; Dkt. No. 98 at ¶ 19.

Section 9.26 of the 2011-16 CBA provides that "[t]he unremarried spouse and otherwise eligible dependent children of an employee, who retires after April 1, 1979, with ten or more years of active State service and subsequently dies, shall be permitted to continue coverage in the health insurance program with payment at the same contribution rates as required of active employees for the same coverage."

Dkt. No. 98 at ¶ 20. Article 50 of the 2011-16 CBA, entitled "Conclusion of Collective Negotiations," provides that

[t]his Agreement is the entire agreement between the State and CSEA, terminates all prior agreements and understandings and concludes all collective negotiations during its term. During the term of this Agreement, neither party will unilaterally seek to modify its terms through legislation or other means. The parties agree to support jointly any legislation or administrative action necessary to implement the provisions of this Agreement. The parties acknowledge that, except as otherwise expressly provided herein, they have fully negotiated with respect to the terms and conditions of employment and have settled them for the term of this Agreement in accordance with the provisions thereof.

Id. at ¶ 21.

C. 2011 Legislation to Implement Contribution Rate Changes for Health Insurance Premiums

Prior to 2011, section 167(8) of the Civil Service Law provided, in relevant part, that the "state cost of premium or subscription charges for eligible employees" covered by a CBA "may be increased to the terms of such agreement." Dkt. No. 98 at ¶ 22 (citing Senate Bill 5846, Assembly Bill 8513). On August 17, 2011, section 167(8) was amended to read as follows:

Notwithstanding any inconsistent provision of law, where and to the extent that an agreement between the state and an employee organization entered into pursuant to article fourteen of this chapter so provides, the state cost of premium or subscription charges for eligible employees covered by such agreement may be modified pursuant to the terms of such agreement. The president, with the approval of the director of the budget, may extend the modified state cost of premium or subscription charges for employees or retirees not subject to an agreement referenced above and shall promulgate the necessary rules or regulations to implement this provision.

Id. at ¶ 23. Defendants contend that "[s]ection 167(8) was amended to implement the collectively bargained provisions of the CSEA 2011-16 CBA relating to health insurance contributions." Dkt. No. 93-2 at ¶ 24. Plaintiffs, however, assert that "the parties never agreed to change retiree health insurance contributions as part of collective bargaining, despite the State's proposals to change the level of premium contribution rates to a sliding scale based upon number of years of employment during the 1991-1995, 2003-2007 and 2007-2011 rounds of negotiations." Dkt. No. 98 at ¶ 24.

D. Collective Bargaining Agreements Between the State and CSEA from 1982 to 2011

Section 9.1(a) of the CBA in effect from 2007 to 2011 (the "2007-11 CBA") stated that "[t]he State shall continue to provide all the forms and extent of coverage as defined by the contracts in force on March 31, 2007, with the State's health insurance carriers unless specifically modified by this Agreement." Dkt. No. 98 at ¶ 25. As with the 2007-11 CBA, the 2003-07 CBA, 1999-03 CBA, 1995-99 CBA, 1991-95 CBA, 1988-91 CBA, 1985-88 CBA, and 1982-85 CBA all contained this language regarding the forms and extent of coverage. See id. at ¶¶ 27-39. None of the contracts between the State and health and dental insurance carriers, including those in force between 1982 and 2011, contains or contained any provision setting forth the respective premium contribution rates of the State and employees. See id. at ¶ 41.

The 2007-11 CBA, 2003-07 CBA, 1999-03 CBA, 1995-99 CBA, 1991-95 CBA, 1988-91 CBA, and 1985-88 CBA all provided that the State paid 90 percent of the cost of the premium for individual coverage and 75 percent of the cost of the premium for dependent coverage for the Empire Plan and HMOs. See Dkt. No. 98 at ¶ 42. The 1982-85 CBA provided that the State paid 100% of employee premiums and 75 % of the cost of dependent coverage. See id. at ¶ 43. The 2007-11 CBA, 2003-07 CBA, 1999-03 CBA, 1995-99 CBA, 1991-95 CBA, 1988-91 CBA, 1985-88 CBA, and 1982-85 CBA provided that "[t]he unremarried spouse of an employee, who retires after April 1, 1979, with ten or more years of active State service and subsequently dies, shall be permitted to continue coverage in the health insurance program with payment at the same contribution rates as required of active employees." Id. at ¶ 44.

E. Administrative Measures in 2011 Regarding Contribution Rates for Employee Health Insurance Premiums

By letter dated September 21, 2011, Defendant Hite notified Defendant Megna that she was extending, as authorized by Civil Service Law § 167(8), and subject to his approval, the modified State premium contribution rates set forth in Article 9 of the 2011-16 CSEA CBA, to unrepresented employees and retirees. See Dkt. No. 98 at ¶ 45. The letter was signed by Defendant Megna on September 22, 2011. See id. at ¶ 46.

On September 27, 2011, Defendant Hite adopted a Resolution, citing to the authority vested in her in Civil Service Law sections 160(1), 161-a, and 167(8), which amended section 73.3(b) of Title 4 of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations. See Dkt. No. 93-2 at ¶ 47 (citing Dkt. No. 93-21); see also Dkt. No. 98 at ¶ 47. The Resolution contained the following provisions applicable to retirees:

(i) for retirees who retired on or after January 1, 1983, and employees retiring prior to January 1, 2012, New York State shall contribute 88 percent of the charge on account of individual coverage and 73 percent of the charge on account of dependent coverage, provided, however, that for hospital/medical/mental health and substance abuse coverage provided under a Health Maintenance Organization, the State's rate of contribution shall not exceed 100 percent of its dollar contribution for such coverage under the Empire Plan;

(ii) for employees retiring on or after January 1, 2012, from a title allocated or equated to salary grade 9 or below, New York State shall contribute 88 percent of the charge on account of individual coverage and 73 percent of the charge on account of dependent coverage, provided, however, that for hospital/medical/mental health and substance abuse coverage provided under a Health Maintenance Organization, the State's rate of contribution shall not exceed 100 percent of its dollar contribution for such coverage under the Empire Plan;

(iii) for employees retiring on or after January 1, 2012, from a title allocated or equated to salary grade 10 or above, New York State shall contribute 84 percent of the charge on account of individual coverage and 69 percent of the charge on account of dependent coverage, provided, however, that for hospital/medical/mental health and substance abuse coverage provided under a Health Maintenance Organization, the State's rate of contribution shall not exceed 100 percent of its dollar contribution for such coverage under the Empire Plan.

Dkt. No. 98 at ¶ 48; see also Dkt. No. 93-21 at 2-3 (emphasis omitted). The foregoing provisions were made effective October 1, 2011. See id. at ¶ 49. Defendant Hite also certified the necessity of adopting the proposed amendments on an emergency basis. See id. at ¶ 50.

F. Chapter 14 of the Laws of 1983

In 1983, Civil Service Law § 167(8) was modified to provide that the full cost of health insurance premiums would be paid by the State for those who retired prior to January 1, 1983. See Dkt. No. 98 at ¶ 51; see also Dkt. No. 93-23. The 1983 law further provided that nine-tenths of the premium charge for health insurance would be paid by the State for current employees and those who retire on or after January 1, 1983. See id. at ¶ 52. The 1983 law was enacted to implement agreements reached through collectively bargaining, including an express agreement that the State would continue to pay 100% of the health insurance premium contributions for those who retired prior to January 1, 1983. See id. at ¶ 53.

G. Fiscal Crisis Facing the State in 2010-2011

As a result of the Great Recession that began in December 2007 according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the State faced General Fund budget gaps for Fiscal Year 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011-2012 in the amounts of $17.9 billion (2 percent of estimated spending), $9.2 billion (15 percent of estimated spending), and $10 billion (15 percent of estimated spending), respectively. See Dkt. No. 98 at ¶ 54. A General Fund budget gap means the difference between planning spending commitments and the receipts available to pay them. See id. at ¶ 55. State law requires the Governor to submit and the Legislature to enact an annual General Fund budget that is balanced. See id. at ¶ 56. The State balances the General Fund budget using the cash basis of accounting. See id.

In Fiscal Years 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12, the State was required to adopt a range of measures to close the large budget gaps and achieve a balanced budget. See id. at ¶ 57. The measures adopted in these years touched on a range of State activities, including: reductions in State payments for public schools, health care providers, local governments, social services and other services; imposition of cost controls on the operations of State agencies; increases in tax revenues, including personal income taxes, sales taxes, and other taxes; the deferral of required payments to the State pension system; and the use of non-recurring resources. See id. In Fiscal Year 2011-12, which is the Fiscal Year during which the changes to cost-sharing for health insurance premiums were approved, the State enacted a gap-closing plan to eliminate the $10 billion budget gap. See id. at ¶ 58. The Fiscal Year 2011-12 gap-closing plan consisted of a range of measures to moderate spending growth and increase receipts. See id. at ¶ 59. The gap closing plan for Fiscal Year 2011-12 authorized actions to lower spending by approximately $8.5 billion, which represented 85% of the gap-closing plan. See id. at ¶ 60. Actions to lower spending included reductions of: $2.8 billion for education aid; $2.7 billion for Medicaid; $1.5 billion for State agency operations; and $1.6 billion for various other programs and activities. See id. at ¶ 61. The gap-closing plan also included approximately $860 million in actions that the New York State Division of the Budget ("DOB") characterized as non-recurring, including the use of certain fund balances and resources made available from state public authorities, as well as $324 million in increased revenues. See id. at ¶ 62.

The development of the annual budget follows a methodical process. See id. at ¶ 63. DOB evaluates the anticipated fiscal position of the State for the upcoming Fiscal Year and establishes savings targets for each area of the budget that it estimates must be achieved for the State to enact a balanced budget. See id. In setting savings targets, the many factors that DOB considers and weighs include service needs and trends, fiscal and policy priorities, legal and administrative constraints, economic effects, and feasibility of enactment. See id. at ¶ 64. DOB analysts develop specific proposals intended to achieve the fiscal targets. See id. at ¶ 65. Those proposals are researched and documented for discussion with senior management. See id. The budget proposals are then reviewed by the Director of the Budget. See id. A package of recommended proposals is then submitted to the Governor for consideration. See id. The final package of proposals approved by the Governor is embodied in the Executive Budget. See id.

The gap-closing plan that was proposed in the 2011-12 Executive Budget was approved by the Legislature with relatively few modifications. See id. at ¶ 66. The plan struck a balance among the constituencies that rely on the State and allocated savings across a range of activities. See id. at ¶ 67. The savings from the redesign of State agency operations came from several sources, including facility closures, operational efficiencies, and wage and benefit changes. See id. at ¶ 68. The reductions from State agency operations were expected to provide savings of $1.5 billion compared with the then current forecast. See id. at ¶ 69. Some of the savings from agency operations were expected to be achieved by negotiated changes, and if negotiations were not successful, significant layoffs would have been necessary. See id. at ¶ 70.

In balancing the budget for a given year, the State weighs the impact of gap-closing actions on its long-term operating position. See Dkt. No. 98 at ¶ 71. DOB typically develops the Financial Plan with a goal of achieving a reasonably close relationship between receipts and disbursements over multi-year period. See id. It is more difficult to maintain year-to-year spending levels and commitments in an environment of persistent large budget gaps. See id. The out-year budget gaps (i.e. , the budget gaps projected for the three subsequent fiscal years) are a measure of fiscal stress taken into account by the credit rating agencies. See id. at ¶ 72. In Fiscal Year 2011-12, the out-year budget gaps, before accounting for the gap-closing measures approved in the 2011-12 Enacted Budget, were projected at $14.9 billion for Fiscal Year 2012-13; $17.4 billion for Fiscal Year 2013-14; and $20.9 billion for Fiscal Year 2014-15. See id. at ¶ 73. The Enacted Budget for Fiscal Year 2011-12 reduced those projections to $2.4 billion, $2.8 billion, and $4.6 billion, respectively. See id. at ¶ 74. The 2011-12 gap-closing plan affected a wide range of State activities, including agency operations, to bring the projected receipts and disbursements into closer alignment over the multi-year Financial Plan. See id. at ¶ 75.

The State's credit rating depends in part on its ability to maintain budget balance in the current year and to keep budget gaps projected for future years within a manageable range. See id. at ¶ 76. A lower credit rating may make it more costly for the State to borrow money. See id. The ratings agencies cited the reduced out-year budget gaps when they upgraded the State's general obligation credit rating in 2014. See id. at ¶ 77.

As part of the response to the Great Recession, all State agencies were asked by the Governor's Office to advance proposals designed to achieve workforce savings. See id. at ¶ 78. Accordingly, the Department of Civil Service (the "Department") was asked to provide proposals. See id. At the Department, many proposals were discussed, including changes to NYSHIP. See id. One proposal to reduce the costs of NYSHIP, while avoiding reductions in plan benefits for State employees and retirees, was to decrease the State's contribution to health insurance premiums. See id. at ¶ 79. This proposal allowed for savings to be achieved within NYSHIP, while allowing for the overall design and generous benefits of the plan to be maintained, at a minimal additional cost to employees and retirees. See id. at ¶ 80.

H. Defendant Hite Acting as Head of the Department of Civil Service

By the document entitled "Designation of Deputy," dated December 22, 2010, Nancy Groenwegen, then the Commissioner and head of the New York State Department of Civil Service, designated certain persons as deputies, who would act in her absence as the head of the New York State Department of Civil Service. See Dkt. No. 98 at ¶ 81. Defendant Hite was the first deputy so designated by Nancy Groenwegen. See id. at ¶ 83. The designation was filed with the Department of State on December 22, 2010 and Nancy Groenwegen resigned her position that same day. See id. at ¶¶ 82, 84.

According to Defendants, upon Ms. Groenwegen's resignation, Defendant Hite became the Acting Commissioner of the Department of Civil Service. See Dkt. No. 93-2 at ¶ 85. Plaintiffs, however, contend that "Defendant Hite was designated as a Deputy so long as she held the position of Director Division of Classification and Compensation.... Further, Defendant Hite was never appointed as Acting Commissioner by Governor Cuomo and never filed a Public Officer Oath/Affirmation in the position of Acting Commissioner." Dkt. No. 98 at ¶ 85 (citing Hite Depo. pp. 21-22; Lynch Decl., Exh. 16). As Acting Commissioner of the Department, Defendant Hite was not a member of the Civil Service Commission. See id. at ¶ 86. Defendants claim that Hite served as Acting Commissioner until Ms. Groenwegen's successor was appointed in September 2012. See Dkt. No. 93-2 at ¶ 87.

Defendants claim that, as Acting Commissioner, Defendant Hite ran the Department, making all executive decisions on behalf of the agency, including those related to the NYSHIP, and overseeing all Department Divisions, including the Division of Employee Benefits, which is responsible for the administration of the NYSHIP. See id. at ¶ 88. During her tenure as Acting Commissioner, in response to a request by the Governor's office for proposals to achieve workforce savings, the Department considered many proposals, and eventually proposed reducing the State's contribution to the NYSHIP health insurance premiums. See id. at ¶ 89. Defendants claim that the purpose of the proposal was to allow for savings, while maintaining the overall design and rich benefits of the NYSHIP at a minimal cost to employees and retirees. See Dkt. No. 93-2 at ¶ 90.

By letter dated September 21, 2011, Defendant Hite notified Defendant Megna that she would extend, as authorized by Civil Service Law § 167(8), and subject to his approval, the modified State premium contribution rates set forth in Article 9 of the 2011-16 CBA to unrepresented employees and retirees. See id. at ¶ 91; see also Dkt. No. 98 at ¶ 91. Moreover, Defendants claim that Defendant Hite also adopted, pursuant to the authority vested in her by Civil Service Law §§ 160(1), 161-a, and 167(8), a Resolution dated September 27, 2011, amending Section 73.3(b) of Title 4 of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations, as set forth in more detail above. See id. at ¶ 92.

I. The Complaint and Pending Motions for Summary Judgment

In their first cause of action, Plaintiffs allege that the increase in the percentage of the health insurance premium contribution paid by retirees violated the Contracts Clause of Article I, § 10 of the United States Constitution. See Dkt. No. 55 at ¶¶ 79-95. Defendants contend that the Court should dismiss this cause of action because the collective bargaining agreements do not establish a contractual right to a perpetually fixed health insurance premium contribution rates. See Dkt. No. 93-1 at 11-16. Further, Defendants argue that, even if Plaintiffs do have a vested right to a perpetually fixed premium contribution rate, they failed to demonstrate a substantial impairment of that right. See id. at 16-19. Moreover, Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment on this claim because the law at issue served a legitimate public purpose and the means chosen to accomplish that purpose were reasonable and necessary. See id. at 19-23.

In their second cause of action, Plaintiffs allege that the increase in the percentage of the health insurance premium contribution paid by retirees breached Plaintiffs' contractual rights under the 2007-11 CBA. See Dkt. No. 55 at ¶¶ 96-105. Defendants contend that the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim since there is no viable federal claim and that this claim should otherwise be dismissed because it lacks merit. See Dkt. No. 93-1 at 23-25.

The third and fifth causes of action allege that the retirees' premium contribution increase violated Plaintiffs' right to due process under the Federal and State Constitutions. See Dkt. No. 55 at ¶¶ 106-15, 132-40. Defendants argue that these claims fail because Plaintiffs do not have a property interest in a perpetually fixed premium contribution rate and the New York State Constitution does not provide for the cause of action Plaintiffs assert. See Dkt. No. 93-1 at 26-29, 32-34. Additionally, Defendants contend that, even if Plaintiffs had a property interest, the claim still fails because they had an adequate state-court remedy of which they failed to avail themselves. See id. at 30-32.

The fourth cause of action alleges that Defendant Hite lacked the authority to administratively extend the premium shift. See Dkt. No. 55 at ¶¶ 116-31. Defendants claim that this cause of action "appears to have been brought pursuant to Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules and has been dismissed." Dkt. No. 93-1 at 9 (citing Dkt. No. 19 at 19-22).

In their sixth cause of action, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Hite and Megna violated Article III, § 1 of the New York State Constitution. See Dkt. No. 55 at ¶¶ 141-45. Defendants argue that the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim which, in any event, has no merit because Defendants Hite and Megna acted in accordance with the express terms of Civil Service Law § 167(8). See Dkt. No. 93-1 at 34-35.

The seventh cause of action purports to be a separate cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Dkt. No. 55 at ¶¶ 146-49. Defendants contend that this claim is duplicative of the Contracts Clause and federal Due Process causes of action and must be dismissed. See Dkt. No. 93-1 at 36.

Finally, the eighth cause of action alleges that the retirees' premium contribution increase violated Plaintiffs' contract rights established by statute and longstanding practice. See Dkt. No. 55 at ¶¶ 150-55. Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment as to this claim because (1) it is well established that Civil Service Law § 167(1) did not bestow any contractual rights on Plaintiffs; (2) the claimed past practice did not exist; and (3) a past practice is merely a form of parol evidence and does not independently establish a contractual right. See Dkt. No. 931 at 37-39.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of review

B. First Cause of Action: Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution

1. Legal Framework

"The Contracts Clause restricts the power of States to disrupt contractual arrangements. It provides that '[n]o state shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.' " Sveen v. Melin , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 1815, 1821, 201 L.Ed.2d 180 (2018) (quoting U.S. Const., Art. I, § 10, cl. 1 ). While the origins of the Clause lie in legislation enacted after the Revolutionary War to relieve debtors of their obligations to creditors, it applies to any kind of contract. See id. (citations omitted).

"At the same time, not all laws affecting pre-existing contracts violate the Clause." Sveen , 138 S.Ct. at 1822 (citing El Paso v. Simmons , 379 U.S. 497, 506-507, 85 S.Ct. 577, 13 L.Ed.2d 446 (1965) ). To determine when such a law crosses the constitutional line, the Supreme Court has long applied a two-step test. See id. "The threshold issue is whether the state law has 'operated as a substantial impairment of a contractual relationship.' " Id. at 1821-22 (quoting Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus , 438 U.S. 234, 244, 98 S.Ct. 2716, 57 L.Ed.2d 727 (1978) ). "In answering that question, the Court has considered the extent to which the law undermines the contractual bargain, interferes with a party's reasonable expectations, and prevents the party from safeguarding or reinstating his rights." Id. at 1822 (citations omitted). "If such factors show a substantial impairment, the inquiry turns to the means and ends of the legislation. In particular, the Court has asked whether the state law is drawn in an 'appropriate' and 'reasonable' way to advance 'a significant and legitimate public purpose.' " Id. (quoting Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co. , 459 U.S. 400, 411-412, 103 S.Ct. 697, 74 L.Ed.2d 569 (1983) ).

2. Contractual Relationship

In their motion, Defendants contend that no contractual relationship exists as to the allegedly impaired term because there is no contractual term promising the perpetual continuation of premium contribution rates at a specific level. See Dkt. No. 93-1 at 12-16. Plaintiffs, however, argue that they are entitled to summary judgment as to this claim because there is no dispute that the collective bargaining agreements at issue entitled retirees to health insurance "with the State paying 90% of the cost of individual coverage and 75% of the cost of dependent coverage upon the completion of 10 years of State service." See Dkt. No. 97-33 at 16. Plaintiffs rely primarily on two provisions of the CBAs at issue. See id. at 16-18. The first provision provides that "[e]mployees covered by the State Health Insurance Plan have the right to retain health insurance after retirement upon completion of ten years of service." Id. The second provision provides that "[t]he State agrees to pay 90 percent of the cost of individual coverage and 75 percent of the cost of dependent coverage toward the hospital/medical/mental health and substance abuse components provided under the Empire Plan."Id. at 16. Plaintiffs assert that this language has been contained in both clause within Section 9 of the CBAs from the 1982-85 CBA through the 2007-11 CBA. See id.

Generally, "contractual obligations will cease, in the ordinary course, upon termination of the bargaining agreement." Litton Financial Printing Div. v. N.L.R.B. , 501 U.S. 190, 207, 111 S.Ct. 2215, 115 L.Ed.2d 177 (1991) (citation omitted). "That principle does not preclude the conclusion that the parties intended to vest lifetime benefits for retirees." M & G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett , --- U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 926, 937, 190 L.Ed.2d 809 (2015). The Supreme Court has specifically "recognized that 'a collective-bargaining agreement [may] provid[e] in explicit terms that certain benefits continue after the agreement's expiration.' " Id. (quotation omitted). "But when a contract is silent as to the duration of retiree benefits, a court may not infer that the parties intended those benefits to vest for life." Id. The court "must look to well established principles of contract interpretation to determine whether the parties intended that the contract give rise to a vested right." Kolbe v. Tibbetts , 22 N.Y.3d 344, 353, 980 N.Y.S.2d 903, 3 N.E.3d 1151 (2013) ; see also Litton , 501 U.S. at 207, 111 S.Ct. 2215.

Central to the Court's analysis here is the United States Supreme Court's decision in M & G Polymers USA, LLC v. Hobert Freel Tackett , --- U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 926, 190 L.Ed.2d 809 (2015). Tackett involved an open-ended CBA provision for retiree insurance benefits that the Sixth Circuit found ambiguous as to duration. See id. at 934. The appellate court applied the reasoning of an earlier Sixth Circuit decision, International Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Yard-Man, Inc. , 716 F.2d 1476 (6th Cir. 1983), drawing inferences from the "context" of labor negotiations to resolve the contractual ambiguity. Id. at 932 (citing Tackett v. M & G Polymers, USA, LLC (Tackett I) , 561 F.3d 478, 490 (6th Cir. 2009) ). Although the CBA contained a general durational clause, the Sixth Circuit found it "unlikely" that the employees' union would have agreed to CBA language that ensured a full company contribution if the employer could have unilaterally changed those terms. See id. (citing Tackett I , 561 F.3d at 490 ) ). The Sixth Circuit therefore found the existence of a question of fact as to whether the retiree benefits vested for life. See id.

The Supreme Court disagreed. Writing for the majority, Justice Thomas stated that contractual provisions in CBAs are to be enforced as written and interpreted in accordance with "ordinary principles of contract law, at least when those principles are not inconsistent with federal labor policy." Id. at 933. As with any contract, "the parties' intentions control." Id. (citing Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp. , 559 U.S. 662, 682, 130 S.Ct. 1758, 176 L.Ed.2d 605 (2010) ). Where the terms of the contract are unambiguous, it is to be construed "in accordance with its plainly expressed intent." Id. (quoting 11 R. Lord, Williston on Contracts § 30:6, p. 108 (4th ed. 2012) (Williston) ). Courts may not speculate as to the intentions of employees, unions, and employers in negotiating retiree benefits, but must ground their assessments on record evidence. See id. at 935. Thus, courts may consider certain known customs or industry usages to construe a contract, but "the parties must prove those customs or usages using affirmative evidentiary support in a given case." Id. (citing 12 Williston § 34:3 ).

When faced with ambiguous language, the Supreme Court advised that courts "should not construe ambiguous writings to create lifetime promises." Id. at 936 (citing 3 A. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts § 533, p. 216 (1960) ). Rather, courts should be guided by the "traditional principle that 'contractual obligations will cease, in the ordinary course, upon termination of the bargaining agreement.' " Id. at 937 (quoting Litton Fin. Printing Div., Litton Bus. Sys., Inc. v. NLRB , 501 U.S. 190, 207, 111 S.Ct. 2215, 115 L.Ed.2d 177 (1991) ). While a CBA may explicitly provide that certain terms continue after the agreement's expiration, when a contract fails to address the duration of retiree benefits, "a court may not infer that the parties intended those benefits to vest for life." Id.

In her concurring opinion, Justice Ginsburg expounded upon Justice Thomas' adherence to fundamental principles of contract law, stating that when the parties' intent is unambiguously expressed in the contract, that intent controls, and the court's analysis should go no further. See id. at 938 (Ginsburg, J., concurring) (citing 11 R. Lord, Williston on Contracts § 30:2, p. 98-104) (4th ed. 2012) (Williston) ). When faced with ambiguity, however, courts may consider extrinsic evidence to determine the parties' intentions. See id. (citing 11 Williston § 30:7, at 116-24 ). Justice Ginsburg further observed that there is no rule requiring "clear and express" language in order to demonstrate that the parties intended healthcare benefits to vest. Id. Rather, " 'constraints upon the employer after the expiration date of a collective-bargaining agreement,' we have observed, may be derived from the agreement's "explicit terms," but they 'may arise as well from ... implied terms of