Rosario v. Retirement Board of the Annuity and Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 1st District Appellate » 2008 » Rosario v. Retirement Board of the Annuity and Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago

State: Illinois

Court: 1st District Appellate

Docket No: 1-07-2190 Rel

Case Date: 03/31/2008

Preview:SECOND DIVISION March 31, 2008

No. 1-07-2190 GEORGE ROSARIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE RETIREMENT BOARD OF THE POLICEMEN'S ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO; ROBERT F. REUSCHE, President; KENNETH A. HAUSER, Vice President; JOHN GALLAGHER, JR., Executive Director; DANA R. LEVENSON, STEVEN J. LUX, JUDITH C. RICE, ) MICHAEL LAZZARO, JAMES P. MALONEY, and STEVEN M. ROBBINS, Trustees, Defendants-Appellees. ) ) ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of ) Cook County. ) ) ) ) ) Honorable ) Peter J. Flynn, ) Judge Presiding. ) )

JUSTICE SOUTH delivered the opinion of the court: This appeal arises from an order of the circuit court of Cook County denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and upholding defendant's decision to deny plaintiff's petition for credit for prior service under the Illinois Pension Code (Pension Code) (40 ILCS 5/1-101.1 et seq. (West 2006)). The uncontested facts are as follows: On March 4, 1985, plaintiff, George Rosario, was appointed to the Chicago police department. Prior to his employment as a Chicago police officer, he was employed with the Cook County sheriff's police department as a police officer and a correctional officer with the Cook County department of corrections for a period of nine years from September 1, 1976, to March 10, 1985. On April 18, 2006, he filed a written request with

1-07-2190 the Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund City of Chicago (Board) to transfer his nine years of prior service with the Cook County sheriff's office to the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund. The letter to the Board stated in pertinent part: "Please be advised that I have been employed with the Chicago Police Department for 22 years and prior to that I was employed with the Cook county Sheriff's Department for 9 years. I have dedicated my career to law enforcement and I believe that I have been an exemplary police officer. Therefore, I am requesting that the time I served with the Cook County Sheriff's Department be transferred to the Chicago Police Department. This will enable me to receive 75% of my pension as opposed to 55% with my current tenure." In support of his request, plaintiff submitted a letter from the Board dated April 24, 1992, to another City of Chicago police officer who is not involved in this case. That other police officer referred to in the letter had also held the positions of Cook County sheriff's police officer and Cook County sheriff's correctional officer and, like plaintiff, filed a request to pay into the City of Chicago's annuity fund for the periods prior to his appointment with the city, which request was granted. On June 29, 2006, plaintiff appeared before the Board with his supporting documentation. When asked why he was presenting the letter of the other police officer, plaintiff responded that the Board had made a favorable ruling in that case wherein that other police officer was similarly

-2-

1-07-2190 situated. In response, the presiding officer on behalf of the Board stated: "[T]he Board hears all of these cases as an individual case. The Board, as you probably know, changes from time to timeover the years with elections, and the Board in reviewing the matters and in reviewing your matter makes its own decisions based upon what it believes the law is and how it interprets the law. So while it's informative, the information that you've given to us, it may or may not be binding insofar as the sitting board is concerned." Plaintiff then brought to the Board's attention that it had granted these requests in at least two other instances, and referred to those officers by name. He then went on to say: "I mean, there's a lot of other people that have done it. What I'm trying to do is not something new or obsolete. It's been done. I've known a bunch of people since '90 that have done it." In response, the Board's counsel stated: "Well, I'll tell you this. I don't know the names, but I know there have been some that haven't been approved also." Plaintiff stated that he was "well aware" of those whose requests had not been approved. The Board's counsel then went on to state: "So as I said before, the problem

Download Rosario v. Retirement Board of the Annuity and Benefit Fund of the City of Chic