Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1885 SEPTEMBER TERM, 2008

MARYLAND TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY POLICE LODGE #34 OF THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, INC., et al. v. MARYLAND TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, et al.

Hollander, Matricciani, Thieme, Raymond G., Jr. (Retired, specially assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Hollander, J.

Filed: September 30, 2010

This appeal involves a dispute between the Maryland Transportation Authority Police Lodge #34 of the Fraternal Order of Police, Inc. ("FOP" or the "Lodge"), appellant/crossappellee, and the Maryland Transportation Authority ("MdTA" or the "Authority"), appellee/cross-appellant. At issue is a "Memorandum" signed in February 2006 by Trent M. Kittleman, then the Executive Secretary of the MdTA, and Cpl. John Zagraiek, the President of the Lodge (the "Agreement"). The Agreement committed the MdTA to fund a "Personal Patrol Vehicle program" (sometimes referred to as the "PPV program" or "take-home vehicle program"), whereby each officer of the MdTA Police Force was to receive a "personallyassigned patrol vehicle" for the officer's official use and for commuting. Pursuant to the Agreement, the FOP was obligated to request the withdrawal of proposed State legislation authorizing the MdTA and its police officers to engage in collective bargaining. In 2007, the MdTA informed the Lodge that it would not proceed with the PPV program.1 In response, the Lodge and eleven individual MdTA police officers, appellants,2 filed suit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County against the MdTA, the State of Maryland, the "Maryland Transportation Authority Board,"3 the MdTA's Executive Secretary, its

The MdTA experienced a change in leadership, occasioned by the 2006 gubernatorial election. The individual police officers were Antwan Boykin, Yancy Anthony, Kevin Hoak, Daniel Smith, Carl Pelton, Tom Shepke, Joseph Dugan, James Schuler, Stephen Kolackovsky, Ernest Wright, and Edgar Caraballo. We shall refer to all appellants, collectively, as the "Lodge" or "FOP." As the MdTA points out in its brief, the "Maryland Transportation Authority Board" is not a legal entity separate from the MdTA. Rather, the Maryland Transportation Authority "consists of" the Secretary of the Department of Transportation sitting ex officio as Chairman (continued...)
3 2

1

Chairman,4 and nine individual current and former MdTA members,5 seeking relief on the basis of breach of contract and promissory estoppel. The MdTA moved to dismiss the Lodge's Complaint. It asserted that the Agreement was not a valid contract, nor could it be enforced by promissory estoppel. After reviewing documentary submissions from the parties, the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the MdTA. It also denied as moot a motion by the MdTA to disqualify appellants' counsel due to alleged ethics violations. The court subsequently denied the Lodge's motion for reconsideration. This appeal followed. The Lodge presents four questions, which we have reformulated as a single inquiry: Did the circuit court err in determining that the Agreement was legally unenforceable and on that basis granting summary judgment to the Authority?6 The MdTA has noted a conditional (...continued) of the Authority, and eight individual members of the Authority appointed by the Governor. Md. Code (2008 Repl. Vol., 2009 Supp.),

Download MTA Lodge #34 v. MTA.pdf

Maryland Law