Kearney v. Mayor of Baltimore

Powers, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Appellants were the three plaintiffs in a suit filed on 28 September 1971 in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City against the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City, the individual members of the Board of Estimates of Baltimore City, and other officials of the City government. The plaintiffs alleged that they were full time employees of the Baltimore City Police Department, each holding the rank of Sergeant. The bill of complaint set out certain policies stated in the City’s Administrative Manual with respect to payment for overtime work, described how those policies were implemented in the City’s budget, and alleged that as applied to the plaintiffs and other Sergeants of the Baltimore City Police Department, such policies and actions were unconstitutional, as being unreasonably discriminatory, and as being without any reasonable standard or justification.

Prayers of the complaint asked the court to declare the policies and actions of the City and its officials unconstitutional and illegally discriminatory; to declare the City’s failure to make provision for overtime pay to Police Sergeants to be in contravention of the City Charter; and to declare that the rights of Sergeants in the Baltimore City Police Department are to receive overtime pay under the same conditions as any other full time employee of the City of Baltimore. After a demurrer filed by all defendants was overruled, 1 ⁷⁰⁰ they answered, denying any discriminatory or unconstitutional act or policy, and specifically asserting that they were not proper parties to the action. Appellants followed in February 1973 with a motion for summary judgment, along with an extensive memorandum of law and points and authorities. The City and its officials responded with an answer to the motion, and an affidavit in opposition to the motion.

They asserted that the Police Department is a State agency, over which the City of Baltimore had no control, with the exception of working with the Police Commissioner in the preparation of a police budget. They cited the Code of Public Local Laws, Section IV, which created the position of Police Commissioner, who is appointed by the Governor, 2 and which sets forth the respective duties and method of setting the compensation of the members and employees of the Police Department. The motion for summary judgment was denied 3 on 26 July 1973, apparently without argument. Trial was set for 29 April 1975, but at that time the parties agreed to submit the case to the court, Judge Joseph C. Howard, by filing memoranda on the facts and the law.

Thereafter, on 12 November 1975, Judge Howard filed a Memorandum Opinion. He ruled that the language of the Administrative Manual clearly excluded policemen above the rank of patrolman from overtime pay. He discussed the facts, found ⁷⁰¹ a rational basis for the policy and the classification, and concluded: “For the above reasons, it is the decision of this Court that the policy of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore and its collateral agencies regarding overtime pay to Police Sergeants is not unconstitutional and illegally discriminatory.” It does not appear in the record that anything more in the nature of an order or a decree was submitted to Judge Howard after he filed his Memorandum Opinion. The docket refers to the opinion as an opinion and order, and we shall construe it as constituting a final decree declaring the rights of the parties. 4 Appellants timely filed an order to the clerk to enter an appeal “from the decision of the Honorable Joseph C. Howard dated November 12,1975.” The decision of Judge Howard did not reach or decide the issue raised by the City in its demurrer, its answer, its opposition to the motion for summary judgment, and in its memorandum upon which the case was submitted for decision.

In that memorandum counsel for the City and its officials said: “The Respondents have consistently maintained that they are not the proper parties to this action. The method of setting salaries and determining other monetary needs of the Police Department is set forth in the Code of Public Local Laws of Baltimore City, 1969 Edition, Section IV, Article 16-8 and particularly as to overtime in item (c).” The Code section referred to provides, in part: “Members of the Department required to work overtime, or whose optional leave time is of ⁷⁰² necessity cancelled, may be compensated therefor in accordance with such rules and procedures as may be promulgated by the Commissioner and approved by said Board of Estimates.” Completely absent from the record is any showing that the Police Commissioner ever included in his budget request a provision for payment to Police Sergeants for overtime work, or that he ever promulgated a rule of procedure to authorize such payment. Counsel for the City and its officials explained further in the memorandum filed below: “It has apparently been the Commissioner’s position that he does not deem overtime desirable or necessary for police sergeants, as they are supervisory personnel and as such should maintain a level of work performance, including overtime, which distinguishes them from the ‘rank and file’ patrolman.” Exhibiting the virtues of consistency and tenacity, appellees again argued in this Court, both in their brief and in oral argument, that they are not proper parties in this action — that it is- not the City, but the Police Commissioner, who has the sole authority under the law to initiate the action which the