Skip to main content

State of Rhode Island, by and through Attorney General Peter Kilmartin v. Rhode Island Troopers Association

RIJune 27, 2018No. 17-330Cited 5 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Suttell, Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, Indeglia
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part a Superior Court judgment in a dispute over whether the Attorney General's refusal to defend/indemnify a state trooper in a civil rights action was arbitrable under the troopers' CBA. The Court affirmed that the AG has nondelegable authority to make defense/indemnification decisions but vacated two declarations.

Excerpt

This case came before the Supreme Court on appeal by the defendant, the Rhode Island Troopers Association, from a judgment granting declaratory and equitable relief in favor of the plaintiff, the State of Rhode Island. The Superior Court declared that the Governmental Tort Liability Act, G.L. 1956 chapter 31 of title 9, vests the Attorney General with the nondelegable, nontransferable legal duty to determine whether the state should provide a defense and indemnification in a civil action brought against a state employee. The Superior Court also permanently enjoined arbitration of issues related to the Attorney General's decision to decline to provide a defense and indemnification for Rhode Island State Trooper James Donnelly-Taylor in a pending federal civil rights action brought against him in his individual capacity. After narrowing the issues on appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the trial justice's decision to permanently enjoin the arbitration proceedings, because the issues raised in this case are not arbitrable within the collective bargaining process. The Supreme Court also held that the Governmental Tort Liability Act vests the Attorney General with the authority to determine whether a state employee is acting within the scope of his or her employment and is therefore entitled to representation. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed six of the eight declarations and vacated the two remaining declarations in the judgment of the Superior Court.

What This Ruling Means

**What happened:** The Rhode Island Troopers Association and the state got into a dispute over who decides when state employees get legal defense and financial protection in lawsuits. The issue arose when the state's Attorney General declined to provide legal defense for a state trooper named Taylor in a personal lawsuit. The troopers' union wanted to force this decision into arbitration, but the state argued that only the Attorney General has the authority to make these determinations under state law. **What the court decided:** Both the lower court and Rhode Island Supreme Court sided with the state. The courts ruled that the Attorney General has the exclusive, non-transferable duty to decide whether the state will provide legal defense and cover costs when state employees face civil lawsuits. The court also blocked the union from taking this matter to arbitration. **Why this matters for workers:** This ruling clarifies that state employees cannot rely on union arbitration to override the Attorney General's decisions about legal protection. When state workers face personal lawsuits related to their jobs, the Attorney General has final say over whether the state will help with legal costs and defense—and that decision cannot be appealed through union grievance processes.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Estrada
1st CircuitFeb 2010
Defendant Win
James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result
Umland v. PLANCO Financial Services, Inc.
3rd CircuitSep 2008
Defendant Win
Jane Doe v. Brown University
RIJun 2021

The plaintiff, Jane Doe, appealed from a Superior Court judgment dismissing her complaint against the defendants, Brown University and two of its employees. In Superior Court, the plaintiff asserted claims under both the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act (RICRA) and article 1, section 2 of the Rhode Island Constitution. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the hearing justice erred in determining that her claims under RICRA were precluded by the prior dismissal of the plaintiff's federal Title IX claim. The plaintiff also argued that the hearing justice erred in holding that section 2 of article 1 of the Rhode Island Constitution does not grant the plaintiff a private right of action. The Supreme Court first held that the plaintiff's claims under RICRA were predicated upon the defendants' alleged violations of Title IX, which had already been litigated in federal court. Further, the Supreme Court stated that the resolution of that issue in federal court was essential to the judgment on the merits and, therefore, issue preclusion barred the plaintiff's claim in Superior Court. The Supreme Court also held that the plaintiff's claim that the defendants interfered with her contract with an educational institution was not actionable. Next, the Supreme Court examined the antidiscrimination clause contained in section 2 of article 1 of the Rhode Island Constitution and held that it was not self executing. Further, the Supreme Court held that principles of judicial restraint prevented the Court from creating a private right of action under these circumstances. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.

Defendant Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.