The Chicago Transit Authority was within its authority to trim the pension payout owed to one of its former lawyers, after the lawyer attempted to use his years of service at the CTA to also boost his pension when he retired from the Illinois Attorney General’s Office, a state appeals panel has ruled.
On Aug. 22, a three-justice panel of the Illinois First District Appellate Court sided with the CTA in a long-running dispute with Edward Snow, a lawyer who worked for decades in Illinois state and local government in Chicago.
Snow had sued the CTA in 2017, when the public transit agency unilaterally moved to cut Snow’s benefits after it learned Snow was allegedly pension “double dipping,” and determined he was in violation of the CTA’s pension rules.
Illinois First District Appellate Justice Michael B. Hyman
| illinoiscourts.gov
Snow had begun working for the CTA in 2000, after about two decades of service at the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office. While at the CTA, Snow took advantage of a so-called “bridge plan,” enacted by the CTA, to use his decades of service, combined with a pay-in of more than $82,000, to “purchase service credits” to become fully vested more quickly in the CTA’s pension plan.
According to the court decision, this “bridging plan” was instituted by the CTA to allow it to attract more seasoned government employees, like Snow.
However, the CTA plan included a provision to prevent employees from “double dipping,” or re-using years of governmental employment service to enhance pensions from more than one public employer.
Under that provision, known as Section 8.4, the CTA would reduce benefits it would pay to retirees “to the extent any such benefits are provided by the [CTA’s] Retirement Plan and any other governmental retirement plans for which the Employee received credit.”
Snow worked for the CTA for only five years, allegedly retiring from the CTA in 2005. At the time of that purported retirement, Snow was awarded a monthly pension payment of $3,849, based on more than 20 years of “bridge service” and his 4.5 years at the CTA.
However, Snow’s “retirement” from the CTA lasted two months. He began working for the Attorney General’s Office in September 2005, where he remained until December 2016.
At that time, Snow again retired. This time, he allegedly used his years of prior governmental service to receive additional monthly retirement benefits of $1,540 per month from Illinois’ state retirement plan, and $3,404 per month from Cook County.
He also continued to receive $3,849 per month from the CTA retirement fund. His total monthly retirement payout totaled nearly $8,800, equating to more than $105,000 annually.
In the years leading up to his retirement, Snow and the CTA traded letters, in which Snow allegedly disputed the CTA’s ability to modify or terminate his retirement benefits under its anti-double-dipping provisions.
However, in 2017, after Snow informed the CTA of his latest retirement, the CTA determined Snow had used his years of service at Cook County to enhance at least both his pensions from Cook County and the CTA.
The CTA then terminated Snow’s benefits under its retirement plan, as well as the retiree healthcare benefits he and his family were receiving.
The CTA denied Snow a hearing to contest its decision, and rejected his request to reinstate his benefits.
Snow then filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court, arguing the CTA lacked the authority to terminate his benefits, because the agency’s award of pension benefits amounted to a final, irrevocable decision.
He further argued the CTA’s refusal to grant him a hearing amounted to a violation of his constitutional due process rights.
Cook County Circuit Judge Michael Mullen agreed with the CTA on the question of whether it could enforce its double dipping provision. But the judge also agreed the CTA had violated Snow’s due process rights. Mullen ordered the CTA to pay Snow $143,000, plus $103,000 in attorney fees, for those violations. Mullen said Snow was owed missed monthly payments, dating from the time the CTA terminated his pension benefits, until Snow lost in court.
Both sides appealed, arguing Judge Mullen was wrong.
The appeals panel, however, said Mullen correctly determined the CTA had the authority to strip Snow of his pension benefits.
Snow argued Section 8.4 only applies to the actual moment of retirement. At the time the CTA calculated his pension, he was not then “double dipping,” or double counting the same years of service to become eligible to receive a CTA pension.
But the appeals panel said Snow was misinterpreting the CTA policy and state law.
Under Illinois law, they said, Section 8.4 needs to be interpreted to require retirees participating in the CTA’s plan “to avoid double dipping” on an “ongoing” basis, not just at the time of retirement from the CTA.
“Assuming the Retirement Committee’s 2005 decision awarding Snow a pension benefit constituted a final administrative order, the Retirement Committee had continuing authority to administer the Plan and apply Plan provisions, here section 8.4, even if it might result in a change to the 2005 benefits award,” the appellate justices wrote.
On the question of due process, the appeals panel agreed the CTA had violated Snow’s due process rights.
However, the appellate justices said those violations were merely “nominal” injuries under the law.
“The record establishes that Snow’s conduct caused loss of his CTA pension - taking a pension from (the state retirement plan) and the Cook County Fund using the same service years to qualify for the (CTA) Plan - rather than a deprivation of procedural due process,” the justices wrote.
With this in mind, the justices overturned Judge Mullen’s decision to award him $143,000, plus his $103,000 attorney fees, finding the “nominal” violations don’t entitle Snow to such awards.
The appellate opinion was authored by First District Appellate Justice Michael B. Hyman. Justices Aurelia Pucinski and Mary Ellen Coghlan concurred in the decision.
Snow was represented by attorney Ruth F. Masters, of MastersLaw, of Oak Park.
The CTA was represented by attorney Elizabeth M. Bartolucci, of Bartolucci Law, of Oak Park.