IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT SANGAMON COUNTY, ILLINOIS JOSEPHINE ‘JODY’ PISANI, on behalf of Herself and a Class or Persons Similarly Situated, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD. OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 193, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS: AND ALLIED TRADES COUNCIL 58, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS DISTRICT 9, CARPENTERS LOCAL 270, and PLUMBERS, STEAMFITTERS & REFRIGERATION FITTERS LOCAL 137, FILED May 04 2016 37 | Ratt BA Plaintiffs, vs. No, 2015-MR-978 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, a municipal corporation Defendant. ORDER ‘This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ cross motion for summary judgment pursuant to the provisions of Section 2-105 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (735 LCS $/2-1005). A hearing on the motion was held on April 28, 2016. The Plaintif¥s appeared through counsel, Donald M. Craven. The Defendant appeared through counsel, James K. Zerkle and Nathan E. Rice. In 2003, the City of Springfield enacted City Ordinance No. 558-09-03 (the “2003 Ordinance”) designed to create an early retirement incentive for City employees. The 2003 Ordinance modified the timing in which compensation for unused vacation time is paid to a retiring City employee. Under the 2003 Ordinance, « retiring City employee is allowed to be paid for their accrued unused vacation time prior to the date of their termination, This early lump sum payment for unused vacation has the effect of artificially inflating a retiring City employee's earings. In 2015, the City of Springfield enacted City Ordinance No, 20-07-15 (the “2015 Ordinance”), which amended City code and eliminated the early Jump sum payment for unused vacation, As a result of the 2015 Ordinance, retiring City employees will no longer be permittedmaine, tae? awareto cash out their unused vacation prior to termination from City employment. This change negatively impacts the amount of the City employee's earnings at retirement. ‘The Plaintiffs allege that the 2015 Ordinance constitutes an unconstitutional violation of the Pension Protection Clause because it diminishes and impairs Plaintiffs’ IMRF membership rights and pension benefits, They suggest that recent Illinois Supreme Court deeisions in Kanerverv Weems, 2014 IL 115811 (2014); In Re Pension Reform Litigation, 2015 IL 118585; and Jones v. Municipal Employees Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago, 2016 IL. 119618 undermines the right of local governments throughout Illinois to change or modify any local employment policies that impact employees” future pension benefits, ‘The Defendant asserts that the 2015 Ordinance is constitutional because the City of Springfield does not have the authority to create a pension benefit or change the manner in which 4 pension is caleulated or amend or modify the Hlinois Pension Code. The Defendant maintains that the early lump sum payment for unused vacation is solely based on a local city ordinance and was not established by the Illinois Pension Code. The Defendant further argues that the recent Illinois Supreme Court decisions cited by Plaintiffs are distinguishable from the instant case in that they all address situations where the [!inois General Assembly attempted to amend the Illinois Pension Code to reduce pension benefits derived from the Ulinois Pension Code. The Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund argues in their Brief Amicus Curiae that the Plaintiff's argument that once « municipal employer has elected to allow the acerual and early payout of vacation, that this decision is imevocable and protected under the Illinois Pension Protection Clause cannot prevail. They contend the effects of such a finding would be to vastly enlarge the scope of the Pension Protection Clause and to limit a municipal employer's ability to make compensation decisions. It would prohibit employers from making any decision that had a negative impact, however large or small, on an IMRF participating employee's ultimate pension calculation. Additionally, this finding would also prevent employers fiom doing many activities that are within their discretion but potentially impact pension amounts such as reducing the number of paid sick days, or decreasing overtime. The Court having considered the pleadings, arguments and case law presented by the parties, and the Brief Amicus Curiae filed by the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund, makes the following findings: 1. The ability of City of Springfield employees to receive an early lump sum payment for unused vacation is not a benefit of the enforceable contractual relationship resulting from membership in one of the State’s pension or retirement systems. It is a local employer generated policy that is available to all City employees.The ability of City of Springfield employees to receive an early lump sum payment for unused vacation js not a benefit that is derived directly from membership in the Mlinois Municipal Retirement Fund or from the Hlinois Pension Code. It is derived solely from city ordinance and employment with the City of Springfield. The 2015 Ordinance does negatively impact the amount of a retiring City employee's earnings upon termination of employment, The earings number is used by IMRE in its pension calculations to determine « retiring City employce’s final rate of earnings, The negative impact of this ordinance on a retiring City employee's pension annuity is incidental. Peters v. City of Springfield, 57 Ml.2d 142 (1974), ‘There is no issue as to any materia! fact and the Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. WHEREFORE, the Court orders as follows: ! DATED: The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to the provisions of Section 2-1005 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure is GRANTED. ‘The Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to the provisions of Section 2-1005 of the lilinois Code of Civil Procedure is DENTED. Pursuant 10 Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(a), the Court finds that there is no just reason for delaying cither enforcement of this order or appeal or both. May 4, 2016 Associate Judge of the Circuit Court