Naden v. The Firefighters' Pension Fund of the Sugar Grove Fire Protection District
96 N.E.3d 51
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Sara Naden, a full‑time lieutenant for the Sugar Grove Fire Protection District, stopped working March 31, 2014 and applied for a line‑of‑duty or non‑duty disability pension from the District’s five‑member firefighters’ pension board.
- While on FMLA leave for panic attacks/anxiety, Naden submitted a 16‑page complaint alleging years of sexual harassment and hostile conduct by several named firefighters, including three trustees on the pension board: Chair Brendan Moran and trustees Jason Nichols and Mike Warner.
- The District opened a disciplinary interrogation under the Firemen’s Disciplinary Act based on Naden’s complaint; that inquiry remained pending and unresolved at the time of the pension hearing.
- The pension board held a hearing, voted unanimously that Naden was not disabled, and later issued a written decision adopting the vote; the board relied on several independent medical examination (IME) reports concluding Naden was not disabled for service in that department (or could work elsewhere).
- Naden sought administrative review in circuit court, which affirmed the board. On direct appellate review the court found board bias and vacated and remanded for a de novo hearing excluding three trustees (Moran, Nichols, Warner).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Board bias/recusal | Board was biased because three trustees were named in Naden’s pending harassment complaint and had personal antagonism toward her | Board argued plaintiff waived the bias claim and that participation did not require recusal | Court held participation by trustees named in pending complaint created unacceptable risk of bias; vacated and remanded excluding those trustees |
| Standard for disability under Pension Code (4‑110) | Disability must be assessed as inability to render service in the claimant’s fire department (the current employer) | Board and IMEs treated ability to work in any other department as dispositive against disability | Court held Board misapplied statute: disability is judged with respect to the firefighter’s own department; evidence and legal standards need reconsideration on remand |
| Reliance on medical evidence | Naden argued Board selectively relied on one IME and misread others; some IMEs actually supported disability regarding her department | Board gave greatest weight to Dr. Dinwiddie’s report finding no diagnosable psychiatric illness | Court criticized selective reliance and the legal conclusions injected by IMEs; remand to evaluate evidence under proper legal standard |
| Evidentiary/ancillary rulings (executive session tapes, closed testimony, union intervention) | Naden sought tapes, closed testimony, and challenged union’s limited intervention | Board invoked Open Meetings Act protections and limited union intervention; no substantive participation by union occurred | Court rejected claims: tapes need not be produced; closed testimony would violate Open Meetings Act; limited intervention was not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Kramarski v. Board of Trustees of the Village of Orland Park Police Pension Fund, 402 Ill. App. 3d 1040 (2010) (discusses bias and effect of one interested board member on whole board)
- In re Heirich, 10 Ill. 2d 357 (1956) (principle that persons with personal interest should not adjudicate)
- Scott v. Department of Commerce & Community Affairs, 84 Ill. 2d 42 (1981) (applicants must show proceedings were tainted by dishonesty or unacceptable risk of bias)
- Huff v. Rock Island County Sheriff’s Merit Comm’n, 294 Ill. App. 3d 477 (1998) (ongoing relationships can create unacceptable risk of bias)
- Danko v. Board of Trustees of the City of Harvey Pension Board, 240 Ill. App. 3d 633 (1992) (standard of review for pension board findings and deference limits)
- Peterson v. Board of Trustees of the Firemen’s Pension Fund, 54 Ill. 2d 260 (1973) (disability measured with respect to ability to render service in the fire department)
- Williams v. Pennsylvania, 136 S. Ct. 1899 (2016) (judicial‑disqualification claims can be structural error noticed at any time)
- Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (1964) (a judge embroiled personally with a litigant may be impermissibly biased)
- Wade v. City of North Chicago Police Pension Board, 226 Ill. 2d 485 (2007) (agency decision may be against manifest weight when it selectively relies on one medical expert)