Summary of Opinion — Reagans and Others v. Mayor of Fall River et al. (1927)

Factual and Procedural Background

Sixteen petitioners, each enrolled in the classified list and duly certified as a permanent laborer in the Fall River street department, filed petitions for writs of mandamus in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Bristol on January 18, 1927. The petitions sought reinstatement in their respective employments. The petitions were consolidated and referred to an auditor. On the pleadings and the auditor's report, a single justice (Carroll, J.) ruled that because it did not appear that the petitioners had pursued the remedy provided by G.L. c. 31, §§ 43, 45 (hearing and review), the petitions must be dismissed. The petitioners alleged exceptions to that ruling.

The underlying factual occurrence was that on or about December 18, 1926 each petitioner received a written notice from the superintendent of streets informing him that, effective Monday, December 20, 1926, and until further notice, the street department would operate on a part‑time basis and the petitioners would work two days a week. The notice stated the reason as lack of work due to the season and a depletion of departmental funds and explained that the work would be subdivided so that all might receive some employment. The petitioners did not request the hearing and review available under G.L. c. 31, §§ 43, 45.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the written notice from the superintendent, received before the effective date, satisfied the requirements of G.L. c. 31, § 43 for giving reasons for suspension or reduction of employment.
Whether, having received such a notice and not pursuing the statutory hearing and review under G.L. c. 31, §§ 43 and 45, the petitioners could maintain petitions for writs of mandamus to obtain reinstatement even if the factual bases for the notice were alleged to be untrue.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Carey v. Casey, 245 Mass. 12	The court had decided that reasons for suspension required by statute may lawfully be given three days before the date of removal.	The court relied on this decision to hold that the notice given to petitioners on about December 18, 1926 (for a change effective December 20, 1926) was properly given and satisfied the statutory requirement.
Bois v. Mayor of Fall River, 257 Mass. 471, 476	Authority treating a notice of the kind given as effecting a suspension within the meaning of the civil service statute.	The court cited this case to support the conclusion that the petitioners were suspended within the meaning of the statute as a result of the written notice.
Peckham v. Mayor of Fall River, 253 Mass. 590, at page 593	The appropriate procedure for trying questions involved in a removal or suspension is that provided by G.L. c. 31, §§ 43, 44, 45, and that procedure affords the exclusive remedy when it is available; mandamus is available only when the employee has been prevented from using the statutory procedure (for example, by not receiving the required written statement of reasons).	The court invoked this principle to conclude that the statutory hearing and review procedure was the exclusive remedy available to the petitioners and that, because they had not pursued it, they could not seek mandamus.
O'Brien v. Cadogan, 220 Mass. 578, 581	Support for the proposition that where the statutory procedure is available it is an adequate remedy and mandamus is not appropriate.	The court cited this decision in holding that the hearing and review procedure afforded an adequate remedy which the petitioners failed to use.
McLaughlin v. Mayor of Cambridge, 253 Mass. 193	Cited in the same context as other decisions supporting the availability and adequacy of the statutory civil service procedures.	Included among authorities the court relied on in concluding that the statutory procedure furnished an adequate remedy and barred mandamus when not pursued.
Harrison v. Fall River, 257 Mass. 545, 549	An example of cases in which mandamus has been granted where municipal officers so violated the civil service provisions that the statutory remedy was rendered unavailable.	The court distinguished such cases from the present case, holding that the auditor's findings (as summarized in the opinion) did not show that the statutory remedy was unavailable and therefore did not justify mandamus.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeded as follows:

It described the notice received by the petitioners (given on or about December 18, 1926, effective December 20, 1926) stating reduced work and reduced days because of season and depletion of funds and explaining the plan to subdivide work so all would receive some employment.
Relying on authority (specifically Carey v. Casey), the court held that the statute's requirement that reasons for suspension be given within twenty‑four hours may be satisfied by a reasoned notice given a few days before the effective date; accordingly the notices here were proper and stated reasons as required by G.L. c. 31, § 43.
Because the petitioners received the written notice, they were considered suspended within the meaning of the civil service statute (citing Bois v. Mayor of Fall River).
The court explained that the civil service statute provides a specific procedure for hearing and review of suspensions or removals (G.L. c. 31, §§ 43, 44, 45) and that, when available, this statutory procedure is the exclusive remedy; mandamus is appropriate only when the statutory remedy is unavailable (quoting Peckham v. Mayor of Fall River).
Because the petitioners did not pursue the statutory hearing and review that was available to them, the court concluded that mandamus was not an appropriate substitute remedy, even if later inquiry (by the auditor) cast doubt on the truth of the reasons stated in the notice.
The court addressed the auditor's factual findings (that there was no lack of funds, that seniority was not observed, and that some teamsters were employed full time) and explained that such findings did not entitle the petitioners to bypass the statutory remedy and obtain mandamus. The public hearing exists to resolve whether proper cause existed and whether the causes assigned are true.
The court distinguished prior decisions in which mandamus was granted where municipal officers had so violated the statute as to render the statutory remedy unavailable (citing Peckham and Harrison), and found the present case not to be such a situation.

Holding and Implications

The petitions for writs of mandamus were denied and the exceptions were overruled.

Direct effect: The petitioners are not reinstated by mandamus because they failed to pursue the hearing and review procedure provided by G.L. c. 31, §§ 43 and 45; the statutory remedy was available and exclusive, and mandamus is not appropriate where that remedy was not attempted. The opinion does not purport to establish a new legal rule beyond applying existing civil service precedents; it limits the availability of mandamus in this context to situations where the statutory remedy is rendered unavailable.

Citation: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, March 24, 1927; decision reported July 1, 1927. Opinion by Sanderson, J.

Show full summary ...

CHARLES REAGAN vs. MAYOR OF FALL RIVER another. PETER LEARY vs. SAME. JAMES HARRINGTON vs. SAME. ROBERT THORNBER vs. SAME. JAMES E. KAY vs. SAME. ROCK LeCOMTE vs. SAME. FRANK O'REGAN vs. SAME. PATRICK F. FOX vs. SAME. JOHN WALKER vs. SAME. JOHN P. HENNESSEY vs. SAME. AIME FISETTE vs. SAME. EDWARD J. REYNOLDS vs. SAME. JAMES H. CARROLL vs. SAME. MARTIN F. LITTLE vs. SAME. JAMES E. SULLIVAN vs. SAME. ALPHONSE BOIS vs. SAME.

Civil Service. Mandamus.

A notice in writing from the superintendent of streets in Fall River, received on Saturday by one, enrolled in the classified list of the public service of the Commonwealth and duly certified as a permanent employee as laborer in the street department, informing the laborer that on and after the following Monday until further notice the street department would operate on a part time basis and the laborer would work two days a week because of lack of work owing to the season of the year and such a depletion of the funds of the department that full time employment for all permanent employees was not permitted, is a sufficient notice under G.L.c. 31, § 43. If, after receiving a notice of the character above described, the laborer does not ask for a hearing and review under said § 43, he cannot maintain a petition for a writ of mandamus ordering his reinstatement even if the reasons stated in the notice were not true.

SANDERSON, J.

These are sixteen petitions for mandamus for the reinstatement of the several petitioners in their respective employments in the street department of the city of Fall River. Each petitioner was enrolled in the classified list of the public service of the Commonwealth, and duly certified as a permanent employee as laborer in the street department. On or about December 18, 1926, each petitioner received a written notice from the superintendent of streets informing him that on and after Monday, December 20, 1926, until further notice, the street department would operate on a part time basis, that the petitioners would work two days a week. The reason given in the notice was lack of work owing to the season of the year and such a depletion of the funds of the department as not to permit full time employment for all permanent employees. "Instead of depriving some men of work and granting full time to others it has been decided to so subdivide the work that all might receive some employment." The petitioners did not ask for a hearing and review, as they might have done. G.L.c. 31, §§ 43, 45. Because they had failed to follow this statutory procedure, a single justice denied the petitions. Exception was taken to his finding, ruling and order.

The reasons for a suspension are required by the statute to be given within twenty-four hours after suspension, but it has been decided that such reasons may legally be given three days before the date of removal. Carey v. Casey, 245 Mass. 12. The notice to the petitioners in the case at bar therefore was properly given, and reasons were stated as required by the statute. As a result of this notice the petitioners were suspended within the meaning of that word as used in the statute. See Bois v. Mayor of Fall River, 257 Mass. 471, 476. The court said, in Peckham v. Mayor of Fall River, 253 Mass. 590, at page 593, "The appropriate procedure for trying out all questions involved in a removal or suspension of one entitled to the protection of the civil service law is that provided by the statute. G.L.c. 31, §§ 43, 44, 45. That procedure affords the exclusive remedy when it is available. . . . But when, by not receiving the required statement in writing of the reasons for removal or suspension, the employee cannot avail himself of the procedure then afforded, he may resort to remedy by mandamus." Upon the facts in the case at bar, the procedure provided for hearing and review furnished the petitioners with an adequate remedy; and as they did not avail themselves thereof, they are not entitled to a writ of mandamus. O'Brien v. Cadogan, 220 Mass. 578, 581. Carey v. Casey, supra. McLaughlin v. Mayor of Cambridge, 253 Mass. 193.

The facts found by the auditor to the effect that there was no lack of funds for doing the necessary work in the street department, that after December 20, 1926, the seniority clause of civil service rule 40 (§ 4) was not observed, and that for several weeks after that date teamsters were employed on full time, would not give the petitioners the right to substitute proceedings by way of mandamus for their statutory remedy. The reasons for the public hearing are to determine whether proper cause of suspension existed and whether the causes assigned are true. Cases in which a petition for mandamus has been granted after municipal officers have so violated the provisions of G.L.c. 31, as to make the statutory remedy unavailable to the employee, are distinguishable from the case at bar. Peckham v. Mayor of Fall River, supra. Harrison v. Fall River, 257 Mass. 545, 549.

Exceptions overruled.

REAGAN v. MAYOR OF FALL RIVER