Stevens v. Village of Oak Brook, 990 N.E.2d 802

Stevens, employed as a part-time building inspector 1980–2000 for Oak Brook, was not enrolled in IMRF based on Village guidance.
From 2000–2008 Stevens was a full-time inspector and did participate in IMRF.
Before retirement, Stevens sought retroactive service credit for 1980–2000; the Village refused to sign Form 6.05.
Stevens filed a declaratory judgment and mandamus action; the trial court granted summary judgment and issued a writ mandating signing of Form 6.05.
The Village appealed; the appellate court affirmed, holding that Stevens was entitled to omitted service credit for part-time years and that mandamus was proper.
The court discussed statutory interpretation of IMRF participation and concluded that enrollment was mandatory for Stevens under 40 ILCS 5/7-137.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is participation in IMRF mandatory for Stevens under 40 ILCS 5/7-137?	Stevens argues enrollment was mandatory; the statute uses 'shall' and applies to all qualifying municipal employees.	Village contends participation is voluntary unless the employee elects to participate.	Participation is mandatory; Stevens eligible for IMRF benefits.
Does 50 months retroactive service credit apply to Stevens?	Stevens should receive full credit since enrollment was mandatory.	Credit limited to 50 months for those who could have elected participation.	50-month limit does not apply; statute 7-139(a)(1) governs and supports broader credit.
Did the trial court properly grant summary judgment and mandamus?	There were no genuine issues; the Village had nondiscretionary duty to sign Form 6.05.	There were unresolved defenses and factual issues; mandamus is inappropriate relief.	Summary judgment and mandamus proper; Village duty to sign Form 6.05 established.
Does the equal protection claim survive, and are limitations periods applicable?	Village discriminated by denying credit while enrolling others.	No clear disparate treatment proven; statute of limitations considerations apply.	Equal protection claim rejected; statutes of limitations and laches addressed; timeliness found.

In re B.L.S., 202 Ill. 2d 510 (2002) (statutory interpretation guiding contractual pension rights)
In re Marriage of Lindman, 356 Ill. App. 3d 462 (2005) (construction of statutory language and intent)
Schultz v. Performance Lighting, Inc., 2013 IL App (2d) 120405 (2013) (use of ‘shall’ to indicate mandatory intent)
People v. Tisler, 103 Ill. 2d 226 (1984) (constitutional interpretation of statutory language)
Di Falco v. Board of Trustees of the Firemen’s Pension Fund, 122 Ill. 2d 22 (1988) (contractual rights governed by applicable Pension Code version)
Kenneally v. City of Chicago, 220 Ill. 2d 485 (2006) (mandamus and laches in pension contexts)
Solon v. Midwest Medical Records Ass’n, 236 Ill. 2d 433 (2010) (statutory interpretation avoiding meaningless provisions)
Byer Clinic & Chiropractic, Ltd. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 2013 IL App (1st) 113038 (2013) (judicial estoppel and appellate argument conventions)
Ruff v. Industrial Comm’n, 149 Ill. App. 3d 73 (1986) (appellate treatment of agency decisions)