2019 IL App (1st) 190486
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Plaintiffs De Jesus, Dudley Johnson, and Kouzoukas are Chicago police officers (or former officers) who have received duty disability benefits; they allege their benefits were undercalculated because the Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund (the Fund) failed to include the statutorily required duty availability allowance in salary calculations.
- Since Jan. 1, 1998 the Pension Code requires inclusion of any duty availability allowance actually received by an officer when computing salary for pension/disability benefits.
- Plaintiffs claim a systemic miscalculation: some disabled officers’ awards included the allowance and some did not, based on payroll timing; they sought class relief, damages for unpaid benefits, and an injunction.
- The Fund explained it used salary data provided by the City (final payroll checks) and sent each plaintiff a letter notifying them of the disability award, listing the salary used and the resulting monthly benefit. Plaintiffs received those letters years earlier.
- The circuit court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, holding plaintiffs failed to timely seek administrative review under the Administrative Review Law (35-day rule) and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction. Plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs could challenge a "systematic miscalculation" of disability benefits in court without using the Administrative Review Law | Their claim challenges a policy/standard (systemic miscalculation), not individual administrative decisions, so ARL does not apply | The Fund says the decisions were final administrative decisions; ARL is the exclusive review method and plaintiffs failed to timely invoke it | Held: ARL applies; because plaintiffs were pensioners who received final decisions and notice, they had to seek administrative review and failed to do so, so claims are time‑barred |
| Whether plaintiffs’ suit (including class relief) is barred for failure to timely initiate administrative review | Class action appropriate because systemic practice affects many members and is a policy-like challenge | The Fund argues individual pensioners must timely challenge their individual awards; ARL precludes the action and class relief here | Held: Class relief cannot avoid ARL where plaintiffs are pensioners who received notice of individual final awards and no specific Fund policy of exclusion was pleaded |
Key Cases Cited
- Hooker v. Retirement Board of the Firemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund, 2013 IL 114811 (addressed inclusion of duty availability pay and whether board policy constituted a systemic rule)
- Board of Education of the City of Chicago v. Board of Trustees of the Public Schools Teachers’ Pension & Retirement Fund of Chicago, 395 Ill. App. 3d 735 (2009) (systematic miscalculation by pension board challenged by a nonparty governmental entity was not necessarily subject to ARL)
- Burge v. — (People ex rel. Madigan v. Burge), 2014 IL 115635 (Administrative Review Law is the exclusive method for reviewing final administrative decisions but narrow exceptions exist)
- Outcom, Inc. v. Illinois Department of Transportation, 233 Ill. 2d 324 (2009) (ARL eliminates other statutory, equitable, and common-law actions to review agency decisions when applicable)
- Rodriguez v. Sheriff’s Merit Comm’n, 218 Ill. 2d 342 (2006) (failure to timely initiate administrative review is jurisdictional and bars judicial review)
- Grimm v. Calica, 2017 IL 120105 (2017) (a party’s fair and adequate notice of an administrative decision starts the 35‑day period to seek administrative review)