White v. Ret. Bd. of the Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chi.

• Decision Date: 29 August 2014
• Docket Number: No. 1–13–2315.,1–13–2315.
• Citation: 18 N.E.3d 92
• Parties: Harriet Davis WHITE, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. The RETIREMENT BOARD OF the POLICEMEN'S ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF the CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

18 N.E.3d 92

Harriet Davis WHITE, Plaintiff–Appellee

v.The RETIREMENT BOARD OF the POLICEMEN'S ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF the CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 1–13–2315.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Sixth Division.

Aug. 29, 2014.

David R. Kulger, The Retirement Board of the Policeman's Annuity and Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellant.

Law Offices of Thomas J. Pleines, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellee.

OPINION

Justice REYES delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Defendant, the Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago (Board), appeals from the circuit court of Cook County's order reversing the Board's denial of plaintiff Harriet Davis White's (White) petition for prior service credit for her previous employment with the City of Chicago. On appeal, the Board argues the circuit court erred in reversing the Board's determination for two reasons: (1) the amended version of section 5–214(b) of the Illinois Pension Code (Pension Code) (40 ILCS 5/5–214(b) (West 2012)) retroactively applied to White's claim and, therefore, White could not receive pension service credit for her prior employment with the office of the corporation counsel; and (2) White's position as an administrative assistant II/police aide (police aide) for the City of Chicago police department did not qualify for prior service credit pursuant to section 5–214(c) of the Pension Code (40 ILCS 5/5–214(c) (West 2010)) because White's duties did not constitute “investigative work.” For the reasons that follow, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3 On February 17, 2010, White filed a petition with the Board seeking pension credit for two prior service periods with the City of Chicago under sections 5–214(b) and 5–214(c) of the Pension Code.

As of the date of the petition, White had been a police officer with the Chicago police department since April 1998. Attached to White's petition were documents from the City of Chicago which verified White's employment history. The documents established that the first period of her employment with the City of Chicago was with the corporation counsel's office in the law department beginning on November 1, 1985, and ending on August 31, 1988, as a legal investigator. The second period of employment was as a police aide with the City of Chicago police department from March 16, 1992, until April 12, 1998.¹ As a police aide, White alleged her duties were to conduct investigations of criminal and noncriminal offenses, to evaluate and classify the crime or ordinance violation, and to prepare written reports regarding those complaints. In addition, White asserted she conducted traffic accident investigations and prepared written reports for those investigations. White also stated she maintained and issued district vehicles and radio assignments, kept attendance and absence records, answered telephone inquiries, and assisted citizens with various city service requests.²

¶ 4 At the time White filed her petition for prior service credit, the relevant portions of section 5–214 of the Code provided:

“Any participant in this fund * * * who has rendered service as a member of the police department of the city for a period of 3 years or more is entitled to credit for the various purposes of this Article for service rendered prior to becoming a member or subsequent thereto for the following periods:”

* * *

(b) As a temporary police officer in the city or while serving * * * in the office of the corporation counsel * * *.

(c) “While performing safety or investigative work for the county in which such city is principally located or for the State of Illinois or for the federal government, on leave of absence from the department of police, or while performing investigative work for the department as a civilian employee of the department.” 40 ILCS 5/5–214 (West 2010).

¶ 5 On April 29, 2010, White appeared at the hearing on her petition for prior service credit pro se . The Board cautioned White that she may want to hire an attorney to represent her during the proceedings. Thereafter, White informed the Board that she intended to obtain counsel. The Board excused White without prejudice so she could obtain legal representation. The matter was continued generally. On February 12, 2012, an attorney filed an appearance on White's behalf and requested a hearing on White's pending petition.

¶ 6 On March 29, 2012, the Board conducted a hearing on White's petition. At the time of the hearing section 5–214(b) of the Pension Code had been amended (effective January 5, 2012) and stated any participant in the fund who has rendered service as a member of the police department of the city for a period of three years or more is entitled to prior service credit for the period:

“(b) As a temporary police officer in the city or while serving in the office of the mayor or in the office of the corporation counsel, as a member of the city council of the city, as an employee of the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund created by this Article, as the head of an organization whose membership consists of members of the police department, the Public Vehicle License Commission and the board of election commissioners of the city, provided that, in each of these cases and for all periods specified in this item (b), including those beginning before the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 97th General Assembly, the police officer is on leave and continues to remain in sworn status, subject to the professional standards of the public employer or those terms established in statute.” 40 ILCS 5/5–214(b) (West 2012).

Section 5–214(c) of the Pension Code remained unchanged.

¶ 7 Initially, the Board and White's counsel discussed the effect of the amendment of section 5–214(b) on White's claim for credit for her service with the office of the corporation counsel. White's attorney argued that the amended section did not apply to his client's claim because White's claim had been pending before the Board prior to the amendment. The Board did not render a determination at that time, but stated it would consider the issue of which version of the statute applied to White's claim.

¶ 8 At the hearing, White testified that the reason she delayed pursuing the prior service credit was because “some things had happened in my life and I didn't come back, and I tried to find an attorney that I could afford. And when I did, I found my attorney here, but prior to that, I had some things happen in my life financially.” Regarding her first period of employment with the office of the corporation counsel, White testified she was employed there from November 1985 until August 1988. Her duties included investigating torts and personal injuries as well as serving subpoenas.

¶ 9 Regarding her second period of employment as a police aide with the City of Chicago police department, White testified that she was assigned to the 22nd District police station and “assisted citizens as they came into the station and conducted investigations.” All of the investigations occurred inside the police station, as the “citizens entered the station seeking police service or police help” while she sat at a desk, dressed in her police uniform. White testified she would listen to the citizen and then “formulate a detailed list of questions” in order to “help resolve [the] situation.” For example, White would inquire as to whether the complaint was criminal or “noncriminal.” White stated she would write a report and determine what type of crime occurred. If she determined a follow-up investigation was necessary, White would inform the detective division and explain the matter to them. White further testified that sometimes she would have to “give a flash message over the radio” in case it was “an action that's [sic ] needed to be taken care of immediately.” White stated she would write the initial report before the other police officers or detectives would be assigned to conduct a further investigation in order to complete the report.

¶ 10 White also provided testimony regarding specific reports she prepared. One incident involved an individual making a complaint to White about five or six dogs that were constantly barking. White testified she asked the individual a series of detailed, follow-up questions in order for her to determine how she was going to “handle the situation.” White formulated questions about the dogs, and he responded that they were pit bulls and they looked malnourished. The answers to her questions led White to conclude that illegal dog fighting was occurring in that location. White testified she “conducted a follow-up investigation by initiating an information report, which is handled by the detective division.” An illegal dog fighting ring was discovered and “contraband” and “a couple of guns” were retrieved from that location.

¶ 11 The second incident White testified about involved a frightened and hysterical child. White asked the mother a series of questions which led her to believe there was something physically wrong with the child. Through her questioning, White discovered that the child had been acting afraid and nervous and had been complaining of pain.

¶ 12 At this point in White's testimony the Board stated, “I think we've heard enough to tell you the truth.” White was, however, able to testify that she advised an ambulance be called to take the child to a hospital and that it was later determined the child had been sexually assaulted.

¶ 13 White's counsel then requested the Board consider an affidavit of Officer Richard Maxwell (Officer Maxwell) who worked with White at the 22nd District police station. The affidavit set forth that Officer Maxwell was unable to attend the hearing because he was scheduled to work. Officer Maxwell's affidavit established he had...