Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

12/21/89 Howard Saffold Et Al., v. the City of Chicago Et Al.

December 21, 1989

HOWARD SAFFOLD ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES

v.

THE CITY OF CHICAGO ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS



APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FOURTH DIVISION

549 N.E.2d 671, 192 Ill. App. 3d 827, 140 Ill. Dec. 20 1989.IL.1999

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Kenneth L. Gillis, Judge, presiding.

APPELLATE Judges:

JUSTICE JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the court. JIGANTI, P.J., and LINN, J., concur.

DECISION OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY THE HONORABLE JUDGE JOHNSON

This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court of Cook County granting the summary judgment motion of plaintiffs, Frank Lee and Edgar Gosa. Howard Saffold is not a party to this appeal. The trial court found that the crime prevention work performed by plaintiffs was creditable service pursuant to the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund Act of the Illinois Municipal Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 108 1/2, par. 5-214(c) (hereinafter Act)). Defendants, City of Chicago, the Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago (hereinafter Board), and Richard Jones, executive director of the Board, present the following issues on appeal: (1) whether employment by the League to Improve the Community (hereinafter League) constitutes creditable service for purposes of the Act, and (2) whether the Board acted arbitrarily in denying plaintiffs' request to contribute money to the Police Pension Fund for their respective leaves of absence.

We affirm.

Plaintiff Lee has been a member of the Chicago police force since March 1, 1965. He was granted a leave of absence from the force from November 16, 1974, to November 28, 1977, to work for the League. Plaintiff Gosa has been a Chicago police officer since July 19, 1965. He was also granted an approved leave of absence from November 17, 1974, to November 14, 1976, in order to work for the League. According to the record, plaintiffs coordinated crime prevention activities and educational programs for low income, inner-city communities during their tenure with the League.

The League was a program funded in part by the Federal government through the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (hereinafter LEAA). The LEAA was established by the Crime Control Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. § 3701 et seq. (1982)). The stated purpose of the Crime Control Act, which was later repealed, was "to assist State and local governments in strengthening and improving law enforcement and criminal Justice at every level by Federal assistance." 42 U.S.C. § 3701 (1982).

On September 23, 1984, plaintiffs sent a letter to defendant Jones requesting official computations of their outstanding pension payments during their respective leaves of absence. According to plaintiffs, contributing to their pensions for the period in which they took their leaves of absence would enable them to have uninterrupted police service records for purposes of pension distribution.

On March 27, 1986, the Board denied plaintiffs' request. Subsequently, plaintiffs filed a request seeking an administrative review of the Board's decision. Plaintiffs' request to contribute to the fund was again denied. The Board did, however, vote to allow Howard Saffold full credit for his leave of absence with the League when he served as president of the League pursuant to subparagraph (b) of section 5-214 of the Act. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 108 1/2, par. 5-214(b).

Plaintiffs later filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted on July 12, 1988. The trial court found that plaintiffs' work with the League was within the ambit of section 5-214(c) of the Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 108 1/2, par. 5-214(c)), and that the Board had acted arbitrarily in denying plaintiffs' request. It is from this decision that defendants appeal.

Defendants first contend that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs. Defendants argue that plaintiffs are not entitled to credit for service under section 5 -- 214(c) of the Act since employment by the League does not constitute work for the county, State or Federal government. Defendants point out that there was no employer-employee relationship established between plaintiffs and the Federal government as required by the statute. Section 5 -- 214 provides in pertinent part, as follows:

"Any participant in this fund . . . who has rendered service as a member of the police department of the city for a period of 5 years or more is entitled to credit for the various purposes of this Article for service rendered prior to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.