2014 IL App (1st) 122402
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Thomas, a CTA employee hired in 2008, was bound by CTA Ordinance No. 005-201 to reside within a designated service area within six months of starting work.
- Thomas initially lived in Arlington Heights (outside the service area) and began efforts to move his family into the service area, including attempting to sell the Arlington Heights home and exploring nearby neighborhoods for suitable housing.
- In December 2009, after failing to sell the Arlington Heights home, Thomas moved to a Chicago residence (owned by a relative) with his family; he asserted this move was temporary while seeking service-area housing and caring for his disabled wife.
- An inspector general report concluded Thomas did not reside within the CTA service area, despite some documents and actions suggesting residency in Chicago.
- CTA terminated Thomas in February 2010 for failing to reside in the service area; the Board upheld the termination after a section 28 hearing, and the circuit court affirmed.
- The Illinois Appellate Court reversed, holding that Thomas established domicile in the service area and that the Board’s decision was clearly erroneous under the residency standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Thomas establish residency in the CTA service area? | Thomas abandoned Arlington Heights and intended to reside permanently in the service area. | Thomas’s family remained in Arlington Heights; Chicago residence was temporary, so no new domicile was established. | Yes; residency established in service area. |
| Was the Board's finding of non-residency clearly erroneous given undisputed facts? | Thomas’s acts and intent show a new permanent domicile in the service area. | Board correctly weighed evidence showing lack of abandonment of Arlington Heights domicile due to family circumstances. | Yes; Board’s finding was clearly erroneous. |
| Should the court apply a policy that a employee's domicile is necessarily coextensive with family domicile? | The ordinance targets the individual; family circumstances cannot compel a single domicile rule. | CTA policy considers family residence in determining domicile. | Policy misapplied; residency is individual-centric, and Thomas satisfied it. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maksym v. Board of Election Commissioners, 242 Ill. 2d 303 (2011) (residency determined by intent, acts, and surrounding circumstances)
- O’Boyle v. Personnel Board, 119 Ill. App. 3d 648 (1983) (residency requires abandonment of prior domicile and establishment of a new one)
- Raczkowski v. City of Chicago, 142 Ill. App. 3d 378 (1986) (continued family involvement does not negate establishing a new domicile)
- Dillavou v. County Officers Electoral Board, 260 Ill. App. 3d 127 (1994) (temporary residence can constitute a domicile when coupled with intent to reside there)
- Fagiano v. Police Board, 98 Ill. 2d 277 (1983) (residence and domicile analyzed through intent and actions)