James Lombardi, in his capacity as Treasurer of the City of Providence, Rhode Island

In 2011, the defendant City of Providence passed an ordinance that would terminate City-paid health care benefits for retirees from the Providence police department and fire department who were eligible for federal Medicare benefits (the 2011 Medicare Ordinance). A group of retirees and two unions initiated litigation to bar enforcement of the new ordinance. After engaging in court-ordered mediation, most retirees agreed to a settlement in which the retirees would enroll in Medicare upon achieving the age of eligibility and the City would pay for certain costs associated with Medicare coverage, including penalties incurred from late enrollment in various Medicare supplemental programs such as Parts B and D. Several dozen retirees opted out of the settlement agreement, however, and instead pursued their civil claims through the litigation process. The opt-out plaintiffs' claims for violation of the Takings Clause and for promissory estoppel were dismissed on the City's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract and violation of the Contract Clauses of the United States and Rhode Island Constitutions went to trial. After a lengthy bench trial, the trial justice ultimately concluded that the plaintiffs had not proved their claims, and entered judgment in favor of the City on all counts of plaintiffs' complaints. The plaintiffs appealed from the final judgment, arguing that the trial justice erred by dismissing their claim for breach of contract, dismissing their claim for violation of the Contract Clauses of the Rhode Island and United States Constitutions, granting summary judgment in favor of the City on their claim that the 2011 Medicare Ordinance violated the Takings Clauses of the Rhode Island and United States Constitutions, and granting the City's motion for summary judgment regarding their claim for promissory estoppel. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment with respect to the claims for breach of contract, violation of the Tak

The plaintiffs, a retired firefighter and two retired police officers, had reached settlements with the City of Providence in 2004, regarding the cost of living adjustments (COLAs) provided for in their respective collective bargaining agreements. The settlements were embodied as consent judgments in the Superior Court. Thereafter, the City enacted an ordinance that suspended the plaintiffs' COLAs, and the plaintiffs sued to enforce the consent judgments and hold the City in contempt of the same. Both the City and the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment. The hearing justice granted summary judgment for the City and denied summary judgment for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed. Before the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs argued that a consent judgment cannot "be overruled or otherwise modified by city ordinance[.]" Thus, the plaintiffs contended, the hearing justice erred when she found that the ordinance modified the plaintiffs' rights under the consent judgments and that such finding violated separation of powers principles. The City countered that separation of powers principles would have been violated if the Superior Court had found the City in contempt because, according to the City, courts cannot restrain municipal bodies from exercising their legislative powers. The Supreme Court held that, to the extent that the ordinance purported to nullify the consent judgments, it violated separation-of-powers principles embodied in the Rhode Island constitution. The Supreme Court therefore held that the hearing justice erred in granting the City's cross-motion for summary judgment with respect to these plaintiffs and vacated the judgment of the Superior Court and remanded the case for further proceedings.

In 2012, the defendant City of Providence passed an ordinance suspending the annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) to the pension benefits for retired members of the Providence police and fire departments (the 2012 Pension Ordinance) the suspension would be in place until the then-underfunded pension fund achieved a 70 percent funding level. The City's consultants projected that the pension fund could reach a 70 percent funding level in 2036. Retiree groups and union groups initiated litigation to bar enforcement of the new ordinance. After engaging in court-ordered mediation, most retirees agreed to a settlement which allowed for a ten-year suspension of their COLA benefit. Several dozen plaintiffs opted out of the settlement agreement, however, and instead pursued their civil claims through the litigation process. The opt-out plaintiffs' claims for violation of the Takings Clause and promissory estoppel were dismissed on the City's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract and violation of the Contract Clauses of the United States and Rhode Island Constitutions went to trial. After a lengthy bench trial, the trial justice ultimately concluded that the plaintiffs had not proven their claims, and entered judgment in favor of the City on all counts of the plaintiffs' complaint. The plaintiffs appealed from the final judgment, arguing that the trial justice erred by finding in favor of the City on their Contract Clause claim and by granting summary judgment prior to trial in favor of the City on their claims for violation of the Takings Clause and for promissory estoppel. The plaintiffs also argued that some of them were absolutely immunized from any changes to their COLAs because of prior judicial adjudications. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment with respect to each plaintiff who had also been a plaintiff in prior litigation regarding their COLA benefits which had ended with either a consent judgment or an individual settlem

In 2012, the defendant City of Providence passed an ordinance suspending the annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) to the pension benefits for retired members of the Providence police and fire departments (the 2012 Pension Ordinance) the suspension would be in place until the then-underfunded pension fund achieved a 70 percent funding level. The City's consultants projected that the pension fund could reach a 70 percent funding level in 2036. Retiree groups and union groups initiated litigation to bar enforcement of the new ordinance. After engaging in court-ordered mediation, most retirees agreed to a settlement which allowed for a ten-year suspension of their COLA benefit. Several dozen plaintiffs opted out of the settlement agreement, however, and instead pursued their civil claims through the litigation process. The opt-out plaintiffs' claims for violation of the Takings Clause and promissory estoppel were dismissed on the City's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract and violation of the Contract Clauses of the United States and Rhode Island Constitutions went to trial. After a lengthy bench trial, the trial justice ultimately concluded that the plaintiffs had not proven their claims, and entered judgment in favor of the City on all counts of the plaintiffs' complaint. The plaintiffs appealed from the final judgment, arguing that the trial justice erred by finding in favor of the City on their Contract Clause claim and by granting summary judgment prior to trial in favor of the City on their claims for violation of the Takings Clause and for promissory estoppel. The plaintiffs also argued that some of them were absolutely immunized from any changes to their COLAs because of prior judicial adjudications. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment with respect to each plaintiff who had also been a plaintiff in prior litigation regarding their COLA benefits which had ended with either a consent judgment or an individual settlem