Matthews v. Chicago Transit Authority

This case presents question as to whether defendants could properly bring about changes to health care benefits for retired CTA employees, where said changes were brought about under certain amendments to Pension Code under Public Act 95-0708. Appellate Court found that Retirement Plan, as opposed to Retiree Health Care Trust formed under Public Act 95-0708, must continue to pay for health care benefits for certain class of retirees, because said benefits were vested rights under original retirement plan agreement. In their petition for leave to appeal, defendants assert that Health Care Trust was solely responsible for providing health care benefits and for setting benefit levels to ensure adequate maintenance of funds, and that Appellate Court ruling conflicted with amendments to Pension Code. Plaintiffs-current CTA employees filed separate petition for leave to appeal that challenged Appellate Court ruling that current CTA employees lacked standing to challenge any reduction in said health benefits, where said benefits were subject to grievance procedures set forth in collective bargaining agreements to which said plaintiffs were not parties, and where plaintiffs only remedy was to file unfair labor practice charge against union. Also, defendant-CTA filed separate petition for leave to appeal with respect to Appellate Court’s finding that plaintiffs stated viable promissory estoppel claim arising out of alleged promise that defendants would maintain fully-paid health care benefits, where CTA argued that plaintiffs failed to state viable promissory estoppel claim due to lack of allegation that municipal officer possessed express authority to make such alleged promise.