Englum v. The City of Charleston
2017 IL App (4th) 160747
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- In December 2008 Charleston police officer Steven Englum slipped on ice returning to the station after a dispatch and injured his hand and shoulder. He was later awarded a line-of-duty pension.
- In November 2013 Englum requested health-insurance benefits under section 10 of the Public Safety Employee Benefits Act (Safety Benefits Act).
- In December 2013 the non‑home‑rule City of Charleston enacted an ordinance creating an administrative hearing process (hearing officer appointed by the mayor) to determine local employees’ section 10 eligibility and scheduled a hearing for Englum.
- In February 2014 Englum filed (1) a declaratory-judgment action asking the circuit court to decide his section 10 eligibility and (2) an injunctive action to enjoin the City from using its ordinance procedures.
- The trial court denied the City’s motion to dismiss (based on ripeness/exhaustion), held a merits hearing, ruled Englum eligible for section 10 benefits, and ordered benefits awarded; the City appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly heard Englum’s declaratory action without requiring exhaustion of the City’s administrative process | Englum argued the City lacked statutory authority to create the administrative procedure and thus the court could decide eligibility | City argued it had authority under the Municipal Code to adopt administrative procedures and Englum must exhaust them before court review | Reversed: Englum must exhaust the City’s administrative procedure; trial court should have dismissed the declaratory claim as unripe |
| Whether the City (a non‑home‑rule municipality) had authority to enact the ordinance creating local adjudicative procedures for section 10 claims | Ordinance unlawful; state law controls procedure so court must decide claims | City relied on 65 ILCS 5/10‑4‑1 and 5/1‑2‑1 to enact ordinances governing relations with employees and procedural rules | Held: Section 10‑4‑1 together with 1‑2‑1 authorized the City to adopt the ordinance |
| Whether the Safety Benefits Act preempted local administrative procedures for section 10 claims | Safety Benefits Act governs and preempts local procedures (per Gaffney re: fire districts) | The Act is not a comprehensive procedural scheme and does not expressly preempt local procedures | Held: No preemption—Act contains substantive eligibility rules but no exclusive procedural regime, so City procedures are permissible |
| Jurisdictional posture of the City’s appeal re: injunctive-relief case | City appealed denial of motion to dismiss and trial court’s practical injunction | City argued the trial court’s order denied the City relief and was appealable | Held: Court lacked jurisdiction over appeal No. 4‑16‑0748 because there was no final judgment explicitly granting or denying the injunctive claim; appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Gaffney v. Board of Trustees of the Orland Fire Protection District, 969 N.E.2d 359 (Ill. 2012) (held a fire protection district lacked statutory authority to create its own procedure for section 10 claims; declaratory action appropriate)
- Pedersen v. Village of Hoffman Estates, 8 N.E.3d 1083 (Ill. App. 2014) (home‑rule municipality may create administrative procedures for section 10 claims absent an express legislative limitation)
- Hawthorne v. Village of Olympia Fields, 790 N.E.2d 832 (Ill. 2003) (non‑home‑rule ordinance cannot conflict with or frustrate a comprehensive state statutory scheme)
- Pesticide Public Policy Foundation v. Village of Wauconda, 510 N.E.2d 853 (Ill. 1987) (where legislature enacted a broad, detailed regulatory scheme, local non‑home‑rule regulation is preempted)
- Beahringer v. Page, 789 N.E.2d 1216 (Ill. 2003) (administrative‑exhaustion doctrine applies where a claim is first cognizable before an administrative agency)