UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

Anthony McKnight Sr. Plaintiff, v. State of Connecticut ET. AL., Defendants.

DATE: April 19, 2012

FILE NO: 3:10cv1471(MRK)

Plaintiff Motion to Reconsider Memorandum of Decision The Plaintiff respectfully requests the court to reconsider the dismissal complaint and motions filed based on the following and companion materials also filed. I. Re: Vested -Memorandum of Decision of page 4 paragraph 3.

Defendant proposed offer by way of voluntary agreement or disability retirement does not constitute a violation of the law on the Plaintiffs part. a.) The Plaintiff currently has in excess of $15,000.00 dollars in contributions and interests vested in the state employee retirement system {Please see Retirement Services Benefits Division August 18, 2009 Correspondence, Plaintiffs proposed amended complaint appendix B page one}. b.) 1993: Vested retirement interest- If state employment ends before you

are eligible for immediate retirement benefits. an employee is vested when he has served five years in the Hazardous Duty retirement employment system. Workers Compensation leaves are considered credited service time Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 5-192p. Disability retirement:

(c) A period during which an employee is on a leave of absence approved by the state or otherwise granted pursuant to the terms of the appropriate collective bargaining agreement shall not be considered as a break in service. No vesting service shall be granted for such a period except as specifically indicated in this section. (f) If an employee is absent from the service of the state due to a work-related injury or disease for which periodic workers' compensation cash benefits are payable, the period of such absence shall not count as a break in service and shall be considered vesting service. If a member of tier II, while in state service, becomes so disabled as a result of any injury received while in the performance of his duty as a state employee, he is eligible for disability retirement, regardless of his period of state service or his age.

Sec. 5-169 (i) If a member is entitled to disability compensation under section 5-142 such member shall continue to earn vesting service and credited service, provided such member has not retired.

Sec. 5-170.

Effect of workers' compensation and disability payments. (a) Except as

provided in subsection (i) of section 5-169, a member shall not be entitled to receive or retain retirement income payments made for any period for which the member has received or receives disability payments and necessary medical and hospital expenses because of injury incurred or disease contracted in the performance of certain duties, as provided in section 5-142.

. The State of Connecticut had an fiduciary obligation to fund the pension liability for injured black State corrections officers as it does for similarly injured white state corrections officers. In Pineman v. Oechslin, the State Supreme Court held that

statutory pension provisions established a property interest on behalf of the affected State employees. In Pineman v. Fallon, the court held that the issue in determining whether

a law affecting pension rights meets the substantive due process standard is whether it is rationally related to legitimate State interests {See Connecticut Executive Order 38}

II. Re: Immunity (Page 2) The Plaintiff contends the public officials and agencies of government are not entitled to sovereign immunity for unlawful policies that are contrary to the will of the public. Funded and Unfunded Liabilities for Caucasian corrections officers must equally exist for African American corrections officers similarly situated in accordance with the provisions of C.G.S 5-142(a). The Defendants are requesting dismissal on the grounds of eleventh amendment immunity. In a recent case, the Federal Courts found a claim against a State or its officials is barred by the Eleventh Amendment if it includes back-pay or retroactive benefits. However, in State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition, et al. v. John G.

Rowland, et al. 494 F. 3d 71 (2007) the courts denied the sovereign immunity claim of the Defendant John G. Rowland stating: the amended complaint alleges unconstitutional job terminations, that is, an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks relief properly characterized as prospective, the Eleventh Amendment presents no bar to

the extent the action seeks prospective injunctive relief against the defendants in their official capacities, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, and upheld the federal court rejection of the motions to dismiss. In a similar ruling from the state courts, the courts found that in instance similar to the instant claims, that sovereign immunity does not apply likewise to this dismissal. In the Superior Court's ruling that rejected the motion to dismiss, the judge cited a state Appellate Court case (Skinner v. Angliker, 15 Conn. App. 297, 544 A. 2d 246 (1988)) in which a similar motion to dismiss was also rejected by the courts in a case invoking the same statute (CGS 31-51q). The Appellate Court noted: [I]t is a well established principal in our state that the defense of sovereign immunity is inappropriate where the legislature, by appropriate legislation, consents to being sued.. [T]he case before us is one of first impression. The controlling issue on appeal is whether the legislature intended 31-51q to constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity . . . In this case, it is abundantly clear that General Statutes 31-51q does waive the sovereign immunity by its expressed terms (Skinner v. Angliker).

Likewise, the Plaintiff in this matter contends that the language in Connecticut General Statutes 5-142(a), 31-284(a), and 31-290(c) does not lend itself to Defendant claims of sovereign immunity. The State is an employer pursuant to the Workers Compensation Act, and the aforementioned statutes does not exclude the state from damages. Immunity for defendant not prevail where the Defendants violated claimants property rights by not executing the statutory mandated duties set forth in C.G.S. 5-142(a). The State Defendant through malfeasance confiscated the Plaintiffs property

without the appropriate compensation. The law in this instance provides immunity to the Plaintiff against the discretions of the Defendant. Disability Retirement is a discretionary act, where C.G.S. 5-142(a) mandates an official duty of Hazardous Duty Retirement Benefits being awarded those whom are entitled within the purview of the statutes. The Plaintiff should be allowed the same privileges that are accorded similarly situated Caucasian employees of the State. The Plaintiff has submitted an amended complaint stating a claim and damages in equity. Artificial reductions: include but are not limited to false workers compensation

hearings, fraudulent documents being permitted into personnel files, kidnapping, extortion, embezzlement and payroll fraud, seizure of property, and whatever artificial can include, etc.

III. Re: Disability Retirement Coded into the State of Connecticut/SEBAC legislation as artificial reductions, this policy is an institutionalize bias system of fraud being committed against African American employees entitled to 5-142(a) entitlement elections. The laws being violated are as follows:

Federal Law 42 U.S.C. 1981 provides: All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of

every kind, and to no other. 42 U.S.C. 1983 provides: Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen .of the United States .. to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 31-290c (a) Any person or his representative who makes or attempts to make any claim for benefits, receives or attempts to receive benefits, prevents or attempts to prevent the receipt of benefits or reduces or attempts to reduce the amount of benefits under this chapter based in whole or in part upon (1) the intentional misrepresentation of any material fact including, but not limited to, the existence, time, date, place, location, circumstances or symptoms of the claimed injury or illness or (2) the intentional nondisclosure of any material fact affecting such claim or the collection of such benefits, shall be guilty of a class C felony if the amount of benefits claimed or received, including but not limited to, the value of medical services, is less than two thousand dollars, or shall be guilty of a class B felony if the amount of such benefits exceeds two thousand dollars. Such person shall also be liable for treble damages in a civil proceeding under section 52-564. (b) Any person, including an employer, who intentionally aids, abets, assists, promotes or facilitates the making of, or the attempt to make, any claim for benefits or the receipt or attempted receipt of benefits under this chapter by another person in violation of

subsection (a) of this section shall be liable for the same criminal and civil penalties as the person making or attempting to make the claim or receiving or attempting to receive the benefits. a.) In matters of equity this Court has jurisdiction in issues at law pertaining to equal protection and civil rights as established for African Americans and minority classes as 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1983, and 1985 provide. b.)The Plaintiff respectfully requests the opportunity to argue any matters not raised in these submissions that may prove helpful to my claims at a future date.

Respectfully submitted,

By:_______________________________ Anthony McKnight Sr., M.P.A, M.S. P.O Box 304 West Haven CT 06516 Email: Anthonymcknightsr@gmail.com Telephone: 203-675-7722

CERTIFICATION This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed via U.S. Mail to the Defendant, Asst. Attorney General Maura Murphy-Osborne, State of Connecticut, Office of the Attorney General, 55 Elm Street, Hartford and to maura.murphyosborne@ct.gov, This ____Day of April, 2012.