An appeals court will allow Chicago municipal retirees, who claim the city owes them constitutionally-required subsidized health insurance, to continue their lawsuit against City Hall, as the court says a 2017 ruling on the case denied the retirees' claims, but did not settle what other duties city pension funds still must perform.
Justice Mary Mikva, of the Illinois First District Appellate Court, penned the June 30 ruling with concurrence from Justices Joy Cunningham and Maureen Connors.
In 2013, a group of retired city workers, including former police and firefighters, took the city and its pension fund trustees to Cook County Circuit Court, complaining of the city's plan to phase out health insurance by 2017 for workers who retired after 1989. The retirees contended the Illinois state constitution bars action that could "diminish or impair" benefits for pensioned government workers.
Illinois First District Appellate Court Judge Mary L. Mikva
| kentlaw.iit.edu
The city and its union employees, with involvement of the General Assembly, negotiated agreements concerning retiree health insurance throughout the 1980s and 1990s. But in 2003, both sides agreed the city could eventually end the benefit. Everyone in the program before July 1, 2003 is entitled to the insurance.
Plaintiffs met with rejection before the appellate court in 2016 and 2017, but Mikva pointed out the latest appeal concerned questions not earlier addressed.
Plaintiffs claim the city is obliged, under 1983 and 1985 amendments to the state pension code, to set up a healthcare plan for annuitants — an obligation protected by the state constitution. Cook County Associate Judge Neil Cohen had rejected this contention, saying such an obligation was incompatible with the appellate court's 2017 ruling referring to "law-of-the-case doctrine." However, Mikva said the question was not covered by the 2017 ruling and should be addressed at the county circuit court level.
Mikva explained the difference between the issues.
"It is absolutely law-of-the-case that the plaintiffs have no right to receive — and that neither the City nor the Funds have any obligation to provide — any additional monetary contributions or to guarantee affordable healthcare. The circuit court did not decide what obligation, if any, the Funds might still have — except to say that consideration of the issue was barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine. Having concluded that it was not, we remand for consideration of the merits of that issue," Mikva said.
Mikva also straightened out a dispute between the parties regarding the eligibility cutoff date for fixed-rate subsidies under the insurance plan.
The city argued the date should be April 4, 2003, which was the date the 2003 amendment was signed. However, Mikva agreed with plaintiffs the amendment took effect the following July 1 when it was made part of the pension code.
The plaintiffs are represented by the Chicago firm of Krislov & Associates.
The city is represented by the city's corporate counsel. The pension funds are represented by Taft Stettinius & Hollister; Burke Burns & Pinelli; and lawyer Justin Kugler, all of Chicago.