Prazen v. Shoop

This case presents question as to whether IMRF Bd. properly required plaintiff to return $307,100.50 in early retirement incentives where, after his retirement, plaintiff self-incorporated and returned to same job from which he retired and was receiving pension. Appellate Court, in reversing Bd., found that legislature did not grant IMRF Bd. power to pierce corporate veil to find that plaintiff’s corporation was sham device to circumvent restrictive return-to-work provisions under section 141.1(g) of Pension Code. As such, Bd.’s order requiring return of early retirement incentives was improper where applicable employment agreement was between IMRF employer and corporation and not between IMRF employer and plaintiff.