Hooker v. Retirement Board of the Firemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago
4 N.E.3d 15
Ill.2013Background
- Hooker and Murphy were widows of Chicago firefighters who died in line of duty or from duty-related injuries.
- Each widow initially received an ordinary widow’s pension under section 6-141.1 after their husbands’ deaths.
- Plaintiffs sought 6-140(a) duty-related annuities retroactive to their husbands’ deaths, arguing duty availability pay should be included.
- Circuit court initially ordered retroactive benefits; Board paid benefits and appellate court reversed on some issues.
- The board argued duty availability pay must be included only if actually received by the fireman; the appellate court held it must be included under 6-111(i).
- The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court on the duty-availability issue, holding only paid duty availability pay is included in salary for 6-140(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether duty availability pay must be included in 6-140(a) calculations. | Hooker/Murphy argued it must be included. | Board argued only pay actually received is included. | No; only duty availability pay received by the fireman is included. |
| How 6-111(i) affects the meaning of ‘salary’ for 6-140(a) purposes. | 6-111(i) deems salary to include duty availability pay. | Salary includes only pay actually received; deeming absent receipt is improper. | 6-111(i) includes only pay received; deeming absent receipt is not supported. |
| Whether class certification was proper for count III. | Class certification appropriate for all widows similarly situated. | No valid count III against the Board after reversal on merits. | Class certification inappropriate because count III fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kozak v. Retirement Board of the Firemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund, 95 Ill. 2d 211 (Ill. 1983) (estadablished current salary concept for 6-140(a))
- Bertucci v. Retirement Board of the Firemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund, 351 Ill. App. 3d 368 (Ill. App. 2004) (early duty availability pay interpretation guidance)
- Collins v. Retirement Board of the Policemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund—City of Chicago, 334 Ill. App. 3d 909 (Ill. App. 2002) (duty availability pay retroactive treatment; not controlling here)
- Wheatley v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205, 99 Ill. 2d 481 (Ill. 1984) (standing and representational adequacy in class action context)
- People v. Woodard, 175 Ill. 2d 435 (Ill. 1997) (statutory interpretation caution against departing from plain language)