Employee Benefits

2007 amendment to the Illinois Pension Code allowed an officer or employee of a statewide teachers' union was was a certified teacher as of effective date of amendment to establish service credit in TRS (Teachers' Retirement System) for his or her union work prior to becoming certified as a teacher.  In 2012, legislation repealed the 2007 amendment. Defendants have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the 2007 amendment. The cutoff date in the 2007 amendment was rationally related to a legitimate government interest in offering pension benefits to current employees while containing costs by excluding future employees from those benefits. The 2007 amendment was not special legislation. The 2012 Act that repealed the 2007 amendment violates the pension protection clause in the Illinois Constitution. (KARMEIER, KILBRIDE, and NEVILLE, concurring; THEIS, THOMAS, and GARMAN, dissenting.)

Plaintiff, a former firefighter, sought a line-of-duty disability pension from Firefighters' Pension Fund Board, based on a psychological condition that manifested symptoms during 3 separate training exercises. Board's decision to deny Plaintiff a line-of-duty disability pension is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Explicitly based on medical reports and other evidence, Board concluded that none of the 3 evaluating physicians opined that Plaintiff's inability to perform full-service duties for the District was either caused or exacerbated by the training exercises listed on his application for disability benefits. No due process violation in Board asking evaluating physicians for clarification of their medical opinions. (McLAREN and JORGENSEN, concurring.)

During field simulation for mandatory riot training, police officer suffered a career-ending "catastrophic injury". Hearing officer properly denied health coverage benefits under section 10 of Public Safety Employee Benefits Act. Plaintiff's injuries occurred in response to treating a training simulation as a real-life emergency, rather than in response to real life-threatening or dangerous situations. Thus, section 10(b) of the Act does not apply. The riot simulation u8nder controlled conditions created no actual imminent danger to Plaintiff or her colleagues. (CARTER and HOLDRIDGE, concurring.)

(Modified upon denial of rehearing 2/19/19.) Illinois Supreme Court ruled that Pension Code amendments violated Illinois constitution's pension protection clause. Plaintiffs' counsel in one of the consolidated cases petitioned for attorney's fees, seeking over $200,000 under Illinois Civil Rights Act and an additional $750,000 from a "common fund". Court properly denied fee petition as impermissible under Pension Code, as issues raised by lawsuits (in Jones v. MEABF case) have no relation or connection to the Civil Rights Act, and Plaintiffs in those cases were not aggrieved parties suing under Illinois Constitution on subject of discrimination based on race, color, national origin, or gender. Pension Code bars garnishing plan participants' pention entitlements for any purpose.(MASON and LAVIN, concurring.)

Court affirmed decisions of Defendants (collectively "IMRF") that Plaintiff is not eligible for total and permanent disability benefits from IMRF (Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund). IMRF did not rely exclusively on opinions of its own medical and vocational consultants in making its final administrative decision.Conclusions of consultants are consistent with facts found in Plaintiff's treatment records, and IMRF's decision is not against manifest weight of evidence. (OVERSTREET and WELCH, concurring.)

Plaintiff firefighter fell on ice in parking lot when exiting her car to report for work at fire station (20 minutes prior to shift start time). Pension Fund Board denied request for line-of-duty pension but granted request for not-on-duty pension. Court reversed, finding that Plaintiff was entitled to line-of-duty benefits. Board properly found that Plaintiff was not performing an "act of duty" as defined by Pension Code, even though Village Superintendent of Public Safety had recently told firefighters, via e-mail: "If you're not early--you're late. I appreciate you looking out for each other at shift changes." Plaintiff was not yet on duty, and no ordinance, rule, or regulation imposed on Plaintiff the act of exiting her vehicle in parking lot. (BURKE and HUDSON, concurring.)

After Illinois Supreme Court ruled, in Jones v. MEABF, that Pension Code amendments violated Illinois Constitution's pension protection clause, Plaintiffs' counsel in one of the consolidated cases petitioned for attorneys' fees. Court properly denied attorneys' fees because issues raised by lawsuits have no relation or connection to the Civil Rights Act, under which counsel was claiming fees. The Civil Rights Act cannot serve as a means for awarding attorneys' fees as Plaintiffs in the Jones case were not aggrieved parties suing under the Illinois Constitution on the subject of discrimination based on race, color, national origin, or gender. Pension Code bars garnishing the plan participants' pension entitlements for any purpose.(MASON and LAVIN, concurring.)

Plaintiff had been CTA bus driver for 28 years. His last day of employment was 12/31/06, and he began his retirement on 1/1/07. As Plaintiff's last day of work was 12/31/06, the day the 2004 collective bargaining agreement (CBA) expired, he was not represented by the Union on 1/1/07. Thus, he has standing to challenge the reduction in his health care benefits under the 2017 CBA. As Retirement Plan Agreement explicitly excluded retired employees from its definition of an employee, as of 1/1/07, he was a retiree, not an employee. The Designation of Beneficiary form he signed in 1978 does not cause him to be bound by the 2007 CBA or by any amendments made after his employment ceased on 12/31/06. CTA has no obligation to provide Plaintiff his health care benefits, Plaintiff has no cause of action against CTA for breach of contract or for constitutional violation of Pension Code. (GORDON and REYES, concurring.)