Groves v. Bd. of Educ. of Chicago

• Decision Date: 06 October 1937
• Docket Number: No. 23827.,23827.
• Citation: 10 N.E.2d 403,367 Ill. 91
• Parties: GROVES et al. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CHICAGO.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

367 Ill. 91

10 N.E.2d 403

GROVES et al.

v.BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CHICAGO.

No. 23827.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 11, 1937.

Petition for Rehearing Stricken Oct. 6, 1937.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Cook County; John Prystalski, judge.

Suit by John E. Groves and others against the Board of Education of Chicago. From the decree, the plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

John E. Groves, for appellants.

Richard S. Folsom, of Chicago (Frank S. Righeimer, Ralph W. Condee, and Frank R. Schneberger, all of Chicago, of counsel), for appellee.

ORR, Justice.

The validity of legislation reducing the compulsory retirement age of school teachers and repealing, or changing, other provisions relating to annuities and the voluntary retirement of teachers, is challenged by this appeal. The case comes here from the circuit court of Cook county where an order was entered dismissing counts 1, 2, and 5 of the second amended bill of complaint, for want of equity.

Appellants are retired school teachers between 65 and 70 years of age who were retired by the Chicago Board of Education on July 24, 1935, pursuant to the provisions of the law commonly referred to as the Miller Act, as revised and in force July 12, 1935 (Laws 1935, p. 1378 [Smith-Hurd Ill.Stats. c. 122, §§ 614a, 614b]). They allege that prior to their involuntary retirement they had taught in the public schools of Chicago for many years; that prior to April 20, 1917, pursuant to the statute then in force, teachers, at the beginning of each school year, were required to be elected, annually, for the next ensuing year; that their employment, prior to April 20, 1917, was contractual, and that such contractual relation continued after the 1917 amendment of such statute (Laws 1917, p. 730, § 138 [Smith-Hurd Ill.Stats. c. 122, § 161]) became effective; that the effect of the 1917 amendment was to make such contracts perpetual; that in and by such contracts of employment they acquired vested rights that could not be impaired by subsequent acts of the General Assembly (such as the Miller act) or by resolutions of the Board of Education adopted pursuant to legislative authority or direction.

The facts disclose that there had been for many years a ‘teachers' pension and retirement fund,’ maintained principally from taxes levied for that purpose, to which all teachers in the Chicago public schools were required to contribute and from which they received a pension or annuity for life, upon retirement. Prior to 1935, this pension statute provided for pensions, upon retirement, of from $800 to $1,000 per annum. This section of the School Law was amended at the 1935 session of the General Assembly, at the same session (Laws 1935, p. 1337, § 1 [Smith-Hurd Ill.Stats. c. 122, § 161]) that the Miller act was amended, increasing the annuity to be paid on retirement to $1,200. Each of appellants is now receiving this amount from this fund.

At the 1925 session of the General Assembly, the Miller Act was passed, providing for another and additional pension of $1,500 per annum, to be paid entirely out of tax funds, to Chicago school teachers upon their retirement at 70 years of age and over. The Miller Act (Smith-Hurd Ill.Stats. c. 122 §§ 614a, 614b), as originally passed, made no provision whatsoever for the retirement of teachers between the ages of 65 and 70. At the 1927 session of the General Assembly the act was amended by adding section 3 thereto. This section provided for the voluntary retirement of teachers between 65 and 70 years of age, and required the Board of Education to retire such teachers, upon their request, and to pay teachers retiring at 65 years of age $1,000 a year; at 66 years of age $1,100 a year; at 67 years of age $1,200 a year; at 68 years of age $1,300; at 69 years of age $1,400; and at 70 years of age $1,500 a year. The act provided for their compulsory retirement at the age of 70. The act made no provision whatever for the levy of an additional tax for funds out of which Miller Act annuities were to be paid. The board, therefore, was required to pay them out of the existing taxes levied for educational purposes, and the money set aside for current salaries of active teachers was decreased by the amount of such annuities. These annuities or pensions were required to be, and were, paid in addition to the pensions paid out of the teachers' pension and annuity fund. This amendment to the Miller Act was approved June 24, 1927. Laws 1927, p. 792 (Smith-Hurd Ill.Stats. c. 122, § 614c and note).

At the regular session of the Fifty-Ninth General Assembly held in 1935, three companion bills were passed that are involved in the case at bar, two of which appellants contend are unconstitutional and void. The validity of the third bill-which increased the annuity to be paid to teachers from the public school teachers' pension and annuity fund and increased the taxes to be levied for that fund-is not questioned (Laws 1935, p. 1384 [Smith-Hurd Ill.Stats. c. 122, §§ 177, 178, 180, 181, 183, 212d]). One of the acts adopted by the Fifty-Ninth General Assembly which appellants charge is unconstitutional and void is entitled: ‘An Act to amend sections 1 and 2 and the title of ‘An Act to provide for the compulsory and voluntary retirement of teachers, principals, district superintendents, and assistant superintendents, and for the voluntary retirement of superintendents of schools and members of the Board of Examiners, and for the payment of retirement annuities,’ approved May 19, 1926, as subsequently amended, and to repeal section 3 of said Act.' Laws 1935, p. 1378. By this amendment the compulsory retirement age of teachers was reduced from 70 to 65 years, and the annuity to be paid pursuant to this act was reduced to $500. Section 3, the section that required the Board of Education to retire all teachers on their voluntary application at 65 or more years of age and pay them annuities ranging from $1,000 to $1,500 per annum, was expressly repealed (Laws 1935, p. 1379, § 3 [Smith-Hurd Ill.Stats. c. 122, § 614c note]).

The other act which appellants seek to have declared unconstitutional is: ‘An Act to amend section 138 of ‘An Act to establish and maintain a system of free schools,’ approved and in force June 12, 1909, as amended.' Laws 1935, p. 1337. This act (Smith-Hurd Ill.Stats. c. 122, § 161) amended section 138 of the School Law by adding the words ‘subject to termination by compulsory retirement at the age of 65 years' after the words ‘appointments to teachers and principals shall become permanent.’ This act became effective July 12, 1935, during the summer vacation when the public schools were closed. The board thereupon retired the two appellants and all other teachers coming within the purview of the amendments. Each of appellants is now receiving $1,700 per annum from these two pensions above referred to. Appellants contend that prior to the adoption of the ‘Otis law’ amendments (April 20, 1917) they had yearly contracts of employment; that upon the adoption of these amendments such contracts became perpetual; that in addition to this perpetual contract there is a yearly contract; that the adoption by the Board of Education of the ‘annual school budget,’ in which...