Hooker v. Retirement Board of the Firemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago
2013 IL 114811
Ill.2014Background
- Elaine Hooker and June Murphy, widows of Chicago firefighters, sought 6-140(a) widow’s annuities after their spouses died from duty-related injuries.
- Husbands Michael Hooker (joined 1967) and James Murphy (joined 1966) suffered duty-related injuries, received duty disability benefits, and died in 2000 and 1998 respectively.
- Initially, widows were granted ordinary pensions; later, the circuit court held they were entitled to 6-140(a) benefits retroactive to the Bertucci decision date.
- Counts I–III of the amended complaint sought retroactive benefits, class certification, and inclusion of duty availability pay in the 6-140(a) calculation, respectively.
- Duty availability pay arose in the 1990s; in 2004, 6-111(i) was amended to deem duty availability pay included in salary for Pension Code purposes.
- The appellate court held that 6-111(i) required including duty availability pay in the 6-140(a) calculation even if not received; the Supreme Court reversed as to count III and affirmed other portions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty availability pay inclusion in 6-140(a). | Hooker argues 6-111(i) makes duty availability pay part of salary for widows’ annuities even if not received. | Board argues only duty availability pay actually received is included in the current salary for 6-140(a). | Duty availability pay is included only if received; 6-111(i) does not extend to non-received pay. |
| Interpretation of statutory harmony and current salary. | Salary in 6-140(a) includes duty availability pay for the current position of the widow’s husband. | Salary is limited to what was actually received and 6-111(i) does not create a retroactive inclusion. | Statutes read in light of language; current annual salary includes only duty availability pay actually received. |
| Class certification for count III. | Class treatment appropriate for duty availability pay issue across all widows similarly situated. | No valid cause of action under count III; class certification improper. | Class certification for count III is inappropriate; count III reversed. |
| Cross-appeal about retroactive collective-bargaining agreement applicability. | New agreement retroactively applies to Elaine’s benefits. | Issues not reached because separate suit ongoing; retroactivity not decided. | Court declined to address merits; affirmed dismissal of that issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bertucci v. Retirement Board of the Firemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund, 351 Ill. App. 3d 368 (2004) (duty-related benefits retroactive considerations under 6-140)
- Kozak v. Retirement Board of the Firemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund, 95 Ill. 2d 211 (1983) (current salary concept under 6-140)
- Collins v. Retirement Board of the Policemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund—City of Chicago, 334 Ill. App. 3d 909 (2002) (retroactivity of duty availability pay interpretation in different context)
- Wheatley v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205, 99 Ill. 2d 481 (1984) (named plaintiff representation in class actions)
- Cripe v. Leiter, 184 Ill. 2d 185 (1998) (statutory interpretation and harmonization considerations)