SPRINGFIELD — Attorneys representing the city of Westfield in a lawsuit filed by nearly 20 current Police Department officers alleging wage theft has asked a Superior Court judge to dismiss portions of the lawsuit.
Last September, Springfield-based attorney Jeffrey Morneau with Connor & Morneau representing 19 current officers of the department, alleges the city failed to pay them “regular wages” during their training at the state’s police academy before they began their careers as certified law enforcement officers, according to the original complaint filed in Hampden County Superior Court.
The lawsuit is based largely on a state Appellate Court decision in January 2023 — known as the Brewster decision — that found the town of Brewster had violated state law when it paid officers who were attending the academy less than the regular wages paid to the regular patrol officers, the position to which they were appointed.
The initial plaintiff in the suit, Officer Joseph Clark, said he was appointed as a full-time officer in December 2022 and started work four months later in April 2023, according to the lawsuit.
In April, Clark was sent to the police academy, graduating in September 2023, according to the lawsuit. Between April and September, Clark was paid $19 per hour, “a rate less than the lowest wage rate set forth in the collective bargaining agreement.”
During that period, the lowest wage rate for an entry-level officer was $28.49 per hour until June 30, when it increased to $29.06 per hour, under the collective bargaining agreement the city signed with the Westfield Police Officers Coalition.
In addition, according to the lawsuit, Clark was entitled to education incentive pay, which was not paid while he was attending the academy.
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, which would mean damages would be tripled if the officers prevail.
The officers in the complaint asked for a decision or jury trial on three counts: Violation of Declaratory Judgement Act; Violation of Mass. General Law c.149. 148, which requires employers pay employees the full amount of owed wages; and Quantum Meruit, which is defined as the actual value of services rendered.
The city, represented by the national law firm Seyferth & Shaw LLC, responded to the complaint by requesting the court dismiss the Quantum Meruit Count III and Count II.
The city’s attorneys countered the Count II claim that the wages paid the officers during their training at the academy were dictated by the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Westfield Patrol Officers Coalition and the city.
The officers’ own allegations establish they were paid the precise rates that the applicable CBA set for them during the probationary period, and there is no statutory provision that impacts the rates for officers during their probationary period, according to the city’s attorneys.
“As such, there is no plausible Wage Act claim for officers during their probational period, as they were paid exactly the amount prescribed … and Count II thus fails as a matter of law,” the attorneys wrote.
As to Count III of Quantum Meruit, the city alleges there can be no claim of services rendered when the conditions are set by the CBA between the Police Union and the city, and that if fails as a matter of law.
The officers’ attorneys in responding to the city’s request for dismissal, argued the court is required to determine whether the allegation in the complaint has a claim on which it can be granted, and it must determine if the factual allegations of the complaint suggest an entitlement to relief.
Also, Morneau alleges that the city “intentionally failed to comply with Superior Court Rule 9C, which requires the plaintiffs and defendants to discuss the case in advance of any motion being filed, like the motion to dismiss.
“This requirement is not merely a box to check. Rather, counsel must ‘make a good faith effort to narrow areas of disagreement to the fullest extent,” the officers’ attorney wrote.
Morneau provides a list of times and dates that the city’s attorneys that were missed, which it alleges was intentional.
As to the city’s request to dismiss the wage theft complaint, the officers’ allege they were paid less than what was agreed to in the CBA, and that discovery is needed related to the CBA to settle questions of facts. They also allege there are questions as to when each was appointed to the position of police officer on a full-time basis.
The officers’ response to the Quantum Meruit claim for dismissal was that the academy students were not considered full-time officers as defined by the CBA and therefore not covered by its provisions.
For those reasons, the officer’s requested the court deny the motions to dismiss.
While the case continued in Superior Court, the Westfield City Council last week approved a request by Mayor Michael McCabe for $250,000 to pay for outside counsel.
When McCabe was contacted, he said he couldn’t comment on his request for the allocation or the lawsuit.
This is one of three lawsuits the city is involved with related to the officers in the Police Department.
In September 2023 Police Officer Jason Perron filed a wage theft lawsuit in Hampden County with two complaints. Perron’s wage theft suit was dismissed in Superior Court last July but a lawsuit alleging the city didn’t pay him in a timely fashion as required by state law remains in Superior Court.
Westfield Police Officer Efrain Luna lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court is similar alleging the city didn’t pay officer him “time and a half” rates for work in excess of 40 hours in one week since July 2021.
According to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, law enforcement personnel are exempt from being paid overtime rates if the municipality opts in to what is known as a 207(k) exemption. With that exemption in place, officers must work 171 hours in 28 days, or more than 42.75 hours in a seven-day work period, before an employer has to pay the higher rate.
However, in Luna’s lawsuit, he alleges the city has not established or adopted a 207(k) work period exemption, and therefore he should qualify for overtime rates under the same rules that govern most wage-earners.
There as been no action on Perron’s or Luna’s lawsuit since they were filed.
