IN RE: NEW YORK CITY POLICING DURING SUMMER 2020 DEMONSTRATIONS

Background

Six consolidated civil-rights actions were brought against the City of New York, the New York Police Department, leaders of those entities, and individual NYPD officers. The lawsuits allege that NYPD officers used excessive or unnecessary force, made unlawful arrests or detentions, restricted expression and press reporting, and retaliated against people during racial-justice and police-reform demonstrations in New York City during the summer of 2020.

Five cases were brought by individuals, including three proposed class actions, and seek damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; some also seek orders requiring changes to NYPD policies. The sixth case, brought by the State of New York, challenges NYPD policies and practices and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief but does not name individual officers.

The Sergeant’s Benevolent Association (SBA) and Detectives’ Endowment Association (DEA) sought to intervene in the State’s case. The Police Benevolent Association (PBA) sought to intervene in all six cases. The unions asserted interests involving collective-bargaining rights, officer safety, officer reputations, and possible disciplinary or other consequences for individual officers.

Intervention as of right

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) allows a nonparty to intervene as of right when the motion is timely, the applicant has a direct and legally protectable interest in the case, resolving the case may impair that interest, and the existing parties may not adequately protect it. The court found that the unions’ motions were timely but that the unions did not satisfy the other requirements.

The court held that any effect on collective-bargaining rights was too remote and speculative. No settlement, consent decree, proposed injunction, or specific NYPD policy change existed. The court stated that whether future relief would have a practical effect on workload, staffing, employee safety, or other collective-bargaining rights could not be determined without knowing the terms of that future relief. The unions also did not identify specific policies they sought to preserve or specific changes they opposed.

The court further held that the unions had no protectable interest in preserving allegedly unconstitutional policies. It explained that the present stage of the cases concerns whether NYPD policies or practices violated constitutional rights, and that the City could defend its policies and officers. The court also stated that New York City law gives the City authority over NYPD management and discipline, subject to the legal rules discussed in the opinion.

As to the State’s case, the court found no possible legal liability for union members because that complaint did not name individual officers or identify specific officers; it sought structural relief concerning NYPD practices. As to the other cases, the court found that the City’s Corporation Counsel was defending individual officer defendants and that the unions had not shown that the City could not adequately protect their interests. The court also stated that union intervention would not resolve any conflict between the City and individual officers, because officers could obtain separate counsel if necessary.

Permissive intervention

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b) permits intervention when a nonparty has a claim or defense sharing a common legal or factual question with the main action. The court declined to grant permissive intervention for substantially the same reasons. Because the unions had not shown a legally cognizable interest in the merits or collateral consequences of the cases, the court found that they had not shown the required common claim or defense.

Ruling

Judge Colleen McMahon denied the SBA’s, PBA’s, and DEA’s motions to intervene, including intervention as of right and permissive intervention. The denial was without prejudice to renewal if changed circumstances—such as a proposed settlement, consent decree, or injunction—created a legitimate practical effect on the unions’ collective-bargaining rights. The clerk was directed to remove the motions at Docket Nos. 45, 48, and 51 from the list of pending motions.