Opinion
No. 02-1819
May 30, 2002
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction arises from a claim that the defendant Sheriff of Suffolk County ("defendant" or "Sheriff") has failed to properly maintain the elevator system at the Suffolk County House of Corrections, ("House of Corrections") located at 20 Bradston Street in Boston, Massachusetts. Plaintiff American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 93, AFL-CIO, Local 419 ("plaintiff") seeks a temporary and permanent injunction on behalf of corrections officers employed by defendant Sheriff. After hearing oral arguments and consideration of the affidavits and other papers submitted by the parties, this court DENIES plaintiff's motion.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is the exclusive certified bargaining representative of the corrections officers employed by the Sheriff. In April of 2002, plaintiff contends that it became concerned with the working conditions caused by elevator malfunctions at the House of Corrections. Plaintiff alleges that on or about April 15, 2002, South Shore Elevator Company ("South Shore Elevator"), which has a service contract for the elevators, refused to service the elevators because the defendant has a significant outstanding balance due on its bill. Plaintiff further alleges that on April 25, 2002, only two of the four elevators in Building One of the House of Corrections operated properly. Plaintiff alleges that two corrections officers were injured in the 1990's from malfunctioning elevators and in 1999, a corrections officer was badly injured in an inmate assault when other corrections officers were unable to get to him quickly enough because of malfunctioning elevators. In his papers, the Sheriff strongly disagrees with the plaintiff's version of that incident. Plaintiff asserts that the elevator problems, combined with the impending lay-offs of corrections officers, threaten the safety of the corrections officers since malfunctioning elevators may prevent corrections officers from speedily responding to assaults and other emergency situations. Plaintiff brought an action pursuant to G.L. c. 214, § 1 et seq, and now seeks a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Sheriff from refusing and failing to repair and maintain the elevator system at the House of Corrections.
STANDARD
In determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction, the judge initially evaluates in combination the moving party's claim of injury and chance of success on the merits. Ashford v. MBTA, 421 Mass. 563, 564 n. 3 (1995); Planned Parenthood League of Mass.,_ Inc. v. Operation Rescue, 406 Mass. 701, 710 (1990); Packaging Indus. Group, Inc. v. Cheney, 380 Mass. 609, 617 (1980). If the judge is convinced that failure to issue the injunction would subject the moving party to a substantial risk of irreparable harm, the judge must then balance this risk against any similar risk of irreparable harm which granting the injunction would create for the opposing party. Id. What matters as to each party is not the amount of irreparable harm the party might conceivably suffer, but rather, the risk of such harm in light of the party's chance of success on the merits. Id. Only when the balance between these risks cuts in favor of the moving party may a preliminary injunction properly issue. Id. Additionally, in appropriate cases, the court should also consider the risk of harm to the public interest. GTE Products Corp. v. Stewart, 414 Mass. 721, 723 (1993).
DISCUSSION I. Likelihood of Success on the Merits.
In the present dispute, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. Plaintiff asserts that the injunction should issue because the sheriff negligently failed to repair and maintain the elevator system at the House of Corrections. In making this argument, plaintiff relies on an affidavit of corrections officer Randy Brooks which states that during the week of April 15, 2002, South Shore Elevator refused to service House of Corrections elevators because defendant has failed to timely pay bills owed to South Shore Elevator.
However, the pleadings and affidavits do not support a finding that the Sheriff negligently failed to maintain House of Corrections elevators. Defendant has submitted documented evidence that South Shore Elevator has been regularly performing repairs on the elevators. Furthermore, in her affidavit dated April 29, 2002, Tracey Norton, an accounts receivable employee of South Shore Elevator, represents that despite the House of Corrections' outstanding balance of $91,071.47, South Shore Elevator continues to honor its contract with the House of Corrections.
Plaintiff has also filed a lawsuit in the Boston Municipal Court regarding the elevators pursuant to G.L. c. 149, § 6.
The Sheriff disputes the amount and validity of the outstanding balance.
The record demonstrates that defendant recently upgraded and repaired House of Corrections elevators at a cost of over $515,041.00. South Shore Elevator completed these repairs in December of 2001 at which time the elevators passed state inspection.
Accordingly, given the recent upgrade of the elevators, the Sheriff's report that South Shore Elevator is continuing to service the elevators and only three documented instances of injuries to corrections officers caused by elevator malfunctions since 1993, plaintiff has failed to establish a likelihood of success in proving that the Sheriff has failed to properly repair and maintain the elevators at issue.
The Sheriff argues that the impetus of this lawsuit is actually the layoffs of corrections officers and not the elevators. The Sheriff further contends that a substantial number of the billable repairs needed to the elevators have resulted from vandalism by the corrections officers themselves, specifically that elevator doors have been repeatedly knocked off their tracks by food carts under the control or supervision of corrections officers.
II. Irreparable Harm.
In order for plaintiff to show irreparable harm, plaintiff must establish "injury that is not remote or speculative, but is actual and imminent." Sierra Club v. Larson, 769 F. Supp. 420, 422 (D.Mass. 1991). Plaintiff has failed to sustain this burden. As noted above, the present House of Corrections elevator maintenance policy, including the elevator upgrade and repairs has ensured the safety of corrections officers in all but three documented instances since 1993. While this court recognizes that corrections officers have very difficult and important jobs, it can not make a finding that failure to issue the injunction will subject them to the likelihood of harm that is actual and imminent, and not just speculative. Sierra Club, 769 F. Supp. at 422.
Because of the above finding, this court need not reach the balancing of the harms issue, Ashford, 421 Mass. at n. 3, that is, whether ordering the Sheriff to pay a specific bill, particularly a disputed bill, will infringe on the Sheriff's ability to exercise discretionary functions such as managing his budget and negotiating contracts. Judge Rotenberg Educ. Ctr., Inc. v. Comm'r of the Dep't of Mental Retardation, 424 Mass. 430, 466 (1997) (reasoning that the judiciary gives great deference to a State Agency's exercise of its discretionary functions).
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction be and hereby is DENIED .
___________________________
Paul E. Troy
Justice of the Superior Court