Employee Benefits

Bauwens v. Revcon Technology Group, Inc.

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
ERISA
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 18-3306
Decision Date: 
August 13, 2019
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants-employers’ motion to dismiss on timeliness grounds plaintiffs-trustees of pension plans’ action under ERISA seeking withdrawal liability after defendants had ceased contributing to pension plans set up for their employees and after defendants had defaulted on series of installment payment agreements to recoup said withdrawal liability. Under Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act, claims for unpaid withdrawal liability may not be brought more than six years after date on which cause of action arose; (2) record showed that plaintiffs accelerated withdrawal of liability in 2008 due to past defaults on installment payment agreements addressing defendants’ withdrawal liability; (3) limitations period started on date of instant acceleration of defendants’ withdrawal liability; and (4) instant lawsuit was not filed until 2015. Ct. rejected plaintiffs’ claim that they: (1) “revoked” 2008 acceleration of withdrawal liability when they voluntarily dismissed 2008 lawsuit seeking withdrawal liability; and (2) plaintiffs could “decelerate” previously accelerated withdrawal liability by entering into subsequent installment payment agreements covering defendants’ withdrawal liability.

Public Act 101-177

Topic: 
Equal Pay Act

(Moeller, D-Elgin; Castro, D-Elgin) makes it unlawful for an employer to require an employee to sign a contract or waiver that would prohibit the employee from disclosing or discussing information about the employee’s wages, salary, benefits, or other compensation. It also makes it unlawful for an employer to seek the wage or salary history—including benefits or other compensation—of a job applicant from any current or former employer unless it is a matter of public record or if the job applicant is a current employee  and is applying for a position with the same current employer. Makes other changes. Takes effect 60 days after it becomes law or March 1, 2020. 

House Bill 252

Topic: 
Human Rights Act

(Guzzardi, D-Chicago; Castro, D-Elgin) defines "employer" to include any person employing one (instead of 15) or more employees within Illinois during 20 or more calendar weeks within the calendar year of or preceding the alleged violation. But "employer" does not include any place of worship with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by the place of worship of its activities. Passed both chambers. Effective date of July 1, 2020.

House Bill 834

Topic: 
Equal Pay Act of 2003

(Moeller, D-Elgin; Castro, D-Elgin) amends the Equal Pay Act of 2003 to make it unlawful for an employer to require an employee to sign a contract or waiver that would prohibit the employee from disclosing or discussing information about the employee’s wages, salary, benefits, or other compensation. It also makes it unlawful for an employer to seek the wage or salary history, including benefits or other compensation, of a job applicant from any current or former employer with exceptions if it is a matter of public record or if the job applicant is a current employee and is applying for a position with the same current employer. Makes other changes. Sent to the Governor and would take effect 60 days after it becomes law (March 1, 2020). 
 

Siwinski v. The Retirement Board of the Firemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Pensions
Citation
Case Number: 
2019 IL App (1st) 180388
Decision Date: 
Friday, February 1, 2019
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 5th Div,
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Justice: 
HOFFMAN

(Court opinion corrected 6/12/19.) Plaintiff worked as a paramedic for Chicago Fire Department, and alleged that she suffered emotional and mental health issues after having responded to calls involving injured and deceased firefighters.Retirement Board found that Plaintiff was not disabled, and found that any alleged disability did not result from an act of duty but was due to a preexisting mental health condition and circumstances in her personal life. Court vacated Boards's decision and remanded with directions to Board to specifically address whether Plaintiff was disabled from performing any assigned duty.  Board failed to do so, and unanimously voted again to deny application, and court affirmed Board's decision. Board's determination that Plaintiff did not have PTSD, and that her condition did not result from an act of duty, were against the manifest weight of the evidence. (HALL and LAMPKIN, concurring.)

Levin v. Retirement Board of the County Employees’ & Officers' Annuity & Benefit Fund of Cook Co.

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Employee Benefits
Citation
Case Number: 
2019 IL App (1st) 181167
Decision Date: 
Monday, June 10, 2019
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 6th Div,
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Justice: 
HARRIS

Plaintiff was an assistant state's attorney in Cook County for 23 years, and then was executive director of Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority for 6 years.Retirement Board of County Employees' Annuity and Benefit Fund erred in denying Plaintiff's request to purchase health insurance because her last employer was the State of Illinois and not Cook County.Plaintiff is an "annuitant", and under Illinois Constitution and Section 9-239 of Pension Code, she is entitled to seek health insurance provided by the Fund. Board exceeded its authority when it implemented the "last-employer" rule promulgated by Board. That rule is declared void and unenforceable. (CUNNINGHAM, concurring; CONNORS, dissenting.)

Senate Bill 75

Topic: 
Workplace Transparency Act

(Bush, D-Grayslake; Ann Williams, D-Chicago) prohibits an employer from requiring an employee or prospective employee as a precondition of employment to enter into an agreement or waiver that (1) prevents him or her from disclosing alleged unlawful employment practices, including sexual harassment, discrimination or retaliation; or (2) requires him or her to waive, arbitrate, or otherwise diminish any future claim related to unlawful employment practices. Voids any agreement or waiver to the extent it denies a substantive or procedural right or remedy. 

It does allow the parties to enter into: (1) an agreement or waiver if mutually agreed to and complies with certain disclosure and reporting requirements; and (2) a valid and enforceable confidential settlement agreements related to alleged unlawful employment practices if the parties comply with certain requirements designed to protect the employee and prospective employee. Provides for attorney’s fees and costs for a violation of the Act.

Amends The Human Right Act by defining “harassment” and prohibiting harassment and sexual harassment of nonemployees in the workplace. Holds the employer responsible for harassment or sexual harassment of nonemployees under certain conditions. Amends unlawful discrimination to be what is “actual or perceived” in the context of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, age, sex, marital status, order of protection status, disability, military status, sexual orientation, pregnancy, or unfavorable discharge from the military. Expands “working environment” to be outside of the physical location to which an employee is assigned to perform their duties. Creates employer disclosure requirements regarding settlements of such claims. Requires the Illinois Department of Human Rights to develop a model sexual harassment prevention training program and to make it available to employers online at no cost. Every employer must use the model created or develop their own that must be the same or better than the Department’s and train their employees on a yearly basis subject to civil penalties for non-compliance. Provides for additional training and safety measures for employees of restaurants and bars to be available in English and Spanish.   

Amends The Victims’ Economic Security and Safety Act to define “gender violence” and include it as an entitlement for leave from employment that currently includes only domestic violence and sexual violence. 

Passed both chambers. Effective January 1, 2020. 

Cronin v. Village of Skokie

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Public Safety Employee Benefits Act
Citation
Case Number: 
2019 IL App (1st) 181163
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, May 28, 2019
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 1st Div,
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
MIKVA

Court awarded Plaintiff, who had worked as a full-time firefighter and EMT for the Village for more than 30 years, lifetime health insurance benefits from the Village under Section 10 of the Public Safety Employee Benefits Act. Because Pension Board awarded Plaintiff a line-of-duty disability pension, Plaintiff met the requirements of Section 10(a) of the Benefits Act--that he suffered a catastrophic injury in the line of duty--as a matter of law. Plaintiff also met the requirements of Section 10(b) of the Act:  the only work-related incident presented as a cause of his injury was his act of holding the stretcher as a heavy cardiac patient was dropped onto it, and he presented uncontradicted evidence that he reasonably believed he was responding to an emergency. Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to benefits under the Act. (GRIFFIN and WALKER, concurring.)

Miller v. Board of Trustees of the Oak Lawn Police Pension Fund

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Disability Benefits
Citation
Case Number: 
2019 IL App (1st) 153031
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, May 1, 2019
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 3rd Div,
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
COBBS

(Court opinion corrected 5/9/19.) Police Pension Fund Board awarded police officer a nonduty pension benefit and denied his request for line of duty disability pension benefits. VA medical reports indicated that Claimant was rated 80% military service connected disability that included a 50% disability for PTSD; he had been twice deployed to Iraq and engaged in active combat in Marine reserves. Board properly determined that Claimant's testimony lacked credibility. Although Claimant's PTSD diagnosis may be related in part to his police work, his disabling stress was not necessarily triggered or resulted from performance of a specific and identifiable act of police duty involving special risk. Board's decision was not against manifest weight of evidence. (HOWSE and ELLIS, concurring.)

Prawdzik v. Board of Trustees of the Homer Township Fire Protection District Pension Fund

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Disability Benefits
Citation
Case Number: 
2019 IL App (3d) 170024
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, March 27, 2019
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Will Co.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
HOLDRIDGE

Former firefighter filed action for administrative review of Firefighters' Pension Fund Board's denial of his request for "line of duty" disability pension. Plaintiff was deployed for military duty in Afghanistan for 10 months, in his service in Air National Guard, while employed as a firefighter. He was diagnosed with PTSD and traumatic brain injury, and VA determined that it was related to his military service and awarded him VA disability benefits. Two of the 3 physicians chosen by the Board expressly opined that Plaintiff's work duties, including one traumatic work incident, aggravated or exacerbated his preexisting psychological conditions, resulting in his disability. Medical records and some medical opinions suggest that aggravation of his symptoms was due, at least in part, to acts of duty such as driving fire trucks which reminded him of his combat exposure. (McDADE, concurring; SCHMIDT, dissenting.)