Prospect Heights Fire Prot. Dist. v. Dep't of Emp't Sec.

• Decision Date: 16 March 2021
• Docket Number: 1-18-2525
• Parties: PROSPECT HEIGHTS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY; Board of Review for The Department of Employment Security; Jack L. Calabro, in His Official Capacity as Chairman of the Board of Review; and Robert J. Pyzyna, Defendants (The Department of Employment Security, The Board of Review for the Department of Employment Security, and Jack L. Calabro, Defendants-Appellants).
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

2021 IL App (1st) 182525

191 N.E.3d 24

455 Ill.Dec. 65

PROSPECT HEIGHTS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. The DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY; Board of Review for The Department of Employment Security; Jack L. Calabro, in His Official Capacity as Chairman of the Board of Review; and Robert J. Pyzyna, Defendants(The Department of Employment Security, The Board of Review for the Department of Employment Security, and Jack L. Calabro, Defendants-Appellants).

No. 1-18-2525

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, SECOND DIVISION.

March 16, 2021

Kwame Raoul, Attorney General, of Chicago (Jane Elinor Notz, Solicitor General, and Christina T. Hansen, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellants.

Stephen G. Daday, Daniel J. Lee, and Julie A. Repple, of Klein, Daday, Aretos & O'Donoghue, LLC, of Schaumburg, for appellee.

JUSTICE PUCINSKI delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Defendants—the Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES), Board of Review for the Illinois Department of Employment Security (Board or Board of Review), and Jack L. Calabro, the Chairman of the Board of Review—appeal an order of the circuit court reversing the Board's decision that Robert Pyzyna, who retired after reaching the statutorily mandated retirement age of 65 and was collecting pension benefits, was also eligible to seek unemployment benefits. For the reasons explained herein, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 Career firefighter Robert Pyzyna¹ was employed by plaintiff, Prospect Heights Fire Protection District (District), from June 2005 until his retirement in October 2017. Pyzyna's final day of work was October 28, 2017, and his official date of retirement was October 31, 2017. Pyzyna's retirement was predicated on his reaching the age of 65, the mandatory retirement age for active firefighters, according to the Fire Protection District Act (Fire Protection Act). See 70 ILCS 705/16.13b (West 2016) ("The age for mandatory retirement of firemen in the service of any department *** is 65 years ***."). Pyzyna retired with a defined benefit pension plan under the Illinois Pension Code. See 40 ILCS 5/4-101 et seq. (West 2016) (setting forth the Illinois Firefighters’ Pension Fund). He began receiving pension benefits in accordance with that plan in November 2017. That same month, Pyzyna also filed a claim for unemployment benefits in accordance with the Unemployment Insurance Act (Unemployment Act) ( 820 ILCS 405/100 et seq. (West 2016)). In his claim for unemployment benefits, Pyzyna indicated that he sought those benefits because he had been "laid off" from his place of employment. Pyzyna was subsequently sent a questionnaire to assess his eligibility for unemployment benefits. In the questionnaire, Pyzyna acknowledged that he was receiving monthly pension benefits in accordance with the provisions of his defined benefit plan.

¶ 4 A. Administrative Proceedings

¶ 5 On November 8, 2017, the District was notified of Pyzyna's claim for unemployment benefits and responded by filing a protest with IDES challenging his claim. In its filing, the District argued: "Mr. Pyzyna retired and [was] provided an employer sponsored, defined benefit pension, he was not ‘laid off’ for any reason and we challenge any award of unemployment benefits."

¶ 6 Following the District's protest, IDES scheduled an interview with Pyzyna to resolve his eligibility for unemployment benefits. Following that interview, IDES issued a written decision in which it found that Pyzyna was eligible for unemployment benefits because there was no evidence that he was discharged due to any misconduct; rather, IDES found that "[t]he evidence shows claimant was separated from [the District] due to lack of work. The claimant met the maximum age requirement to work. The reason for separation cannot be made the basis for disqualification and the claimant is not ineligible for benefits *** in regard to this issue."

¶ 7 The District, in turn, filed a "request for reconsideration," urging IDES to reconsider its finding that Pyzyna was "not ineligible" for unemployment benefits. In its filing, the District argued: "The Determination notes that the ‘Issue’ involved with the claim for unemployment insurance benefits was Misconduct and the question posed appears to have been ‘Was the claimant discharged for misconduct connected with work?’ The [D]etermination further notes that the ‘claimant was separated from [the District] due to lack of work.’ Neither ‘misconduct’ nor ‘lack of work’ ever played a part in the retirement of [the claimant] from [the District] and it is unclear how these allegations ever came to be the basis of the Department's determination."

¶ 8 Following the District's request for reconsideration, an administrative law judge (ALJ) presided over a telephone hearing on the matter. During the brief hearing, both Pyzyna and District Deputy Fire Chief Tim Jones testified that Pyzyna's career as a District firefighter ended when he reached the mandatory retirement age of 65 and that it was not the result of any wrongdoing or misconduct. When the parties questioned why IDES was considering the issue of misconduct, the ALJ explained that IDES claims adjudicators consider that issue when a person's separation from his place of employment is involuntary, such as when an individual is laid off. Although the ALJ acknowledged that the circumstances of Pyzyna's unemployment were unique and that his claim essentially required her to fit a "square peg into a round hole," the issue of misconduct had to be considered.

¶ 9 Ultimately, at the conclusion of the hearing, the ALJ took the matter under advisement. Shortly thereafter, the ALJ issued a written decision. In the written disposition, the ALJ framed the issue as: "whether claimant was discharged for misconduct connected with [his] work?" and ultimately concluded the Pyzyna's separation from his employment was not the result of misconduct rendering him ineligible for unemployment benefits. The rationale for that conclusion was based on the ALJ's examination and application of section 602A of the Unemployment Act, and was explained as follows:

"820 ILCS 405/602A provides that an individual shall be ineligible for benefits for the weeks in which he has been discharged for misconduct connected with his work and, thereafter, until he has become re-employed and has had earnings equal to or in excess of his current weekly benefit amount in each of four calendar weeks. The term ‘misconduct’ means the deliberate and willful violation of a reasonable rule or policy of the employing unit, governing the individual's behavior in performance of his work, provided such violation has harmed the employing unit or other employees or has been repeated by the individual despite a warning or other explicit instruction from the employing unit.

Section 602A ordinarily applies in a situation in which a separation from the employment is initiated by the employer. Even though, due to the requirements of Illinois law, the employer in this case had no discretion in initiating the separation from employment, the circumstances of the claimant's separation must be evaluated under the terms of Section 602A of the Act. As there is no showing, by the preponderance of the evidence, that the claimant was discharged for ‘misconduct connected with’ the work, the claimant is considered to be not disqualified from receiving benefits under Section 602A of the Act."

¶ 10 Following the ALJ's decision, the District appealed to the Board. After conducting its own review of the hearing testimony and documentary evidence, the Board affirmed the ALJ's decision. In its written disposition, the Board, like the ALJ, based its analysis on the issue of misconduct and whether Pyzyna left work voluntarily and concluded that Pyzyna's separation from the District was neither voluntary nor the result of misconduct. With respect to the issue of voluntariness, the Board concluded:

"We find that the evidence contained within the record failed to show that the claimant intended to leave the employ of the employer. We hold that in the instant case, the employer took action which resulted in the claimant's unemployment when the employer separated the claimant from the employ of the employer due to the claimant reaching the age of 65."

Regarding the issue of misconduct, the Board observed that

"[t]he term ‘misconduct’ means the deliberate and willful violation of a reasonable rule or policy of the employing unit, governing the individual's behavior in performance of his work, provided such violation has harmed the employing unit or other employees or has been repeated by the individual despite a warning or other explicit instruction from the employing unit."

The Board then concluded that there was no misconduct in the instant case, reasoning:

"In the case herein, the claimant was discharged due to the claimant reaching the age of 65. The employer has failed to propound such evidence of deliberate conduct and a willful disregard of the employer's interest by the claimant. At best the evidence presented herein showed that the claimant was unable to perform the claimant's job within the parameters set by the employer."

Given the lack of evidence that Pyzyna left his job with the District voluntarily or that he was discharged for misconduct, the Board found him "eligible" for unemployment benefits.

¶ 11 B. Circuit Court Proceedings

¶ 12 After the Board issued its decision, the District filed a complaint for administrative review in the circuit court ( 735 ILCS 5/3-101 et seq. (West 2016)), challenging the Board's finding that Pyzyna was eligible for unemployment benefits. In its complaint, the District argued that the Board reached its erroneous conclusion by failing to properly consider the legal effect of the mandatory retirement age for firefighters set forth in the Fire Protection Act and by focusing on the irrelevant issue of "miscondu...