Cepero v. Illinois State Board of Investment, 986 N.E.2d 1200

Cepero sought a hardship withdrawal from his deferred compensation account totaling about $104,007.82 based on an unforeseeable emergency from his wife’s IVF pregnancy with triplets.
Elizabeth’s pregnancy required unpaid medical leave around Jan 20, 2011, risking about $113,972.91 in lost wages.
The Deferred Compensation Hardship Committee denied the first request on Feb 3, 2011 and asked Cepero to notify when Elizabeth began her leave.
On Feb 24, 2011 Cepero filed a second hardship withdrawal request to fund a down payment on a new home due to the impending birth.
The Board denied this request on May 9, 2011, finding the housing need did not constitute an unforeseeable emergency.
The circuit court affirmed the Board’s decision on Feb 16, 2012; the appeal questioned the Board and Committee’s determinations and the standard of review was clearly erroneous under administrative law principles.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Board’s denial was clearly erroneous.	Cepero asserts Board misapplied the unforeseeable emergency standard.	Board argues the event was not unforeseeable and the housing need was not an emergency.	Board’s denial affirmed; not clearly erroneous.
Whether the pregnancy resulting in potential triplets was unforeseeable.	Odds of a multiple IVF pregnancy rendered the event unforeseeable.	Board reasonably treated multiple birth risk as foreseeable given IVF context and condo limits.	Not clearly erroneous to find multiple pregnancy risk within foreseeable range.
Whether purchasing a home can qualify as an unforeseeable emergency.	Purchase of a home was necessary due to imminent birth and limited housing options.	Housing purchase generally does not qualify; no unforeseeable emergency shown.	Purchase of a home not clearly erroneous as non-emergency use.
Whether the Board properly limited review to the Board’s decision and not the Committee’s.	Committee’s analysis should be considered; Board’s denial flawed.	Board issued the final decision on the appeal; standard review confined to Board.	Review confined to Board’s decision; not clearly erroneous.

Hanrahan v. Williams, 174 Ill. 2d 268 (1996) (standard of review under certiorari resembling Administrative Review Law)
Nichols v. Chicago Transit Authority Hardship Committee, 338 Ill. App. 3d 829 (2003) (appeals review of hardship committee decisions)
City of Belvidere v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 181 Ill. 2d 191 (1998) (clearly erroneous standard for agency decisions)
AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 198 Ill. 2d 380 (2001) (clearly erroneous review of agency action)
Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill. 2d 200 (2008) (mixed question of fact and law; clearly erroneous review)